TWU's Day-Care Time-Out

TWU's Day-Care Time-Out

When this newspaper began asking questions in response to transit workers complaining that they had been delayed or outright denied when they sought reimbursement for day-care expenses, Transport Workers Union Local 100 officials declined comment.

But the union apparently realized it had some explaining to do, given that the enrollment numbers suggested it was receiving more than enough funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to pay the intended benefit as provided under its contract. And so shortly before our article last week appeared on this newspaper's Web site Feb. 11, Local 100 posted a memo attempting to shed some light on the situation.

It said that because of low enrollment during the program's first two years - covering through the end of 2004 - the union relaxed its standards, permitting families to enroll more than one child and providing reimbursement at a rate of 50 percent. According to the memo, the situation was supposed to be reassessed at some future point, but this was not done "in a timely manner, resulting in the fund overdrawing on its resources."

During the intervening time, Local 100 went on strike for three days in December 2005 - an ill-considered move that is still affecting its operations as it struggles through its ninth month without dues-check-off privileges. It's entirely plausible that careful monitoring of the day-care program is one of the items that fell through the cracks.

The memo announced that the union has reinstated the limit of one child per member and cut the reimbursement rate to 25 percent of costs. It also said that slots will now be assigned "on a seniority and rotating basis."

Questions remain, however, about the program. Among those who had complained to this newspaper's Ari Paul was a worker who was told he lacked enough seniority to qualify for reimbursement, even though he had seven years on the job. Any union that would cite seniority to deny a worker with that much service has some major rethinking to do about its operations.

Any new program figures to grow as those who would be eligible to take advantage of its benefits become aware of them. And so increasing both the number of children per family and the reimbursement rate based on just a two-year experience was poor financial planning, at best.

One of those who had complained about the fund's operations, the recording secretary for the union's Line Equipment and Signal Division, John Chiarello, was not impressed by the union's explanatory memo.

"In other words, they just ran the fund as they felt, anyway they wanted," he said. "They really neglected their fiduciary responsibility."

Local 100 President Roger Toussaint, who touted the benefit as one of the key gains of the first wage contract he negotiated in 2002, has some fences to mend on this one. He should start by offering the full accounting that Mr. Chiarello requested as to who has gotten the benefits, and how much.