Opting for Arbitration, TWU Head Changes Mind Since 2005

NECESSARY MOVE OR POLITICAL MANEUVER?: Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint (left), who three years ago opted to call a strike rather than agree to arbitrate a contract dispute because doing so would have taken the ultimate decision out of his members' hands, said the worsening economy was a factor in his agreeing to have a third party decide a wage agreement this time. John Samuelsen, who led the fight against ratifying the 2005 deal that eventually required the terms to be produced in arbitration, said he believed Mr. Toussaint was trying to deflect blame if this year's terms require givebacks by some members in order to fund decent raises.

It isn't a universal human right, but in the context of free discourse it is commonly understood that even an argumentative and idealistic person reserves the right to change his or her mind. Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has invoked this writ liberally since taking the reins of the union in 2000.

When he was the union's Track Division Chair, he fought then-union President Willie James for excluding him and other officers from bargaining sessions. Last year, he locked out Private Bus Lines Queens Division Chair Joe Sexton from contract talks, an alleged violation of union by-laws.

Backed Off Track Safety Suit

Mr. Toussaint also filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Labor in 2005 for not implementing more concrete track safety measures for workers, yet in 2007 he stopped pursuing a bill to establish such regulation and opted instead to create a Track Safety Task Force with state officials and the New York City Transit President that has yet to publicly put forth any recommendations.

And so it should have come as just a mild surprise last week that with the current contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority set to expire Jan. 16, Mr. Toussaint, who both prior to and following the 2005 strike said he did not want to go arbitration because it would take the contract out of his members' hands, agreed Jan. 6 to take the very route he once rejected.

Many unions are often distrustful of the arbitration process, and historically that has been the case with Local 100.

Talks Sidetracked by Economy

"There is a general sense that it's a bit of a gamble because you don't have the ability to control your own fate," said Joshua Freeman, a Professor of History at the City University of New York Graduate Center who focuses on the labor movement and wrote a wellreceived book on the history of Local 100.

The MTA, whose board passed a budget last month that included service city and job reductions to close the deficit, cited the faltering economy for causing an impasse in contract talks. In a letter to members Jan. 7, Mr. Toussaint vowed that the arbitration process would be a centerpiece for mounting a struggle against the cuts and cutbacks.

"At issue today is whether transit workers are to be treated in a manner disparate from public employees," Mr. Toussaint said. "While we are in arbitration, we will step up the fight for fairness and justice for transit workers, against service cuts and booth closings, and for adequate funding for mass transit. This will entail a media campaign in television, radio, print and Internet and political action, as well as mobilization at key bus and subway hubs."

The union president has spoken out against the proposed cutbacks, and has along with other transit union leaders lobbied for more state and Federal funding that could stave off the cuts as well as the proposed fare hikes.

Mr. Toussaint explained that the union tried to reach a settlement before the impasse became apparent. Several sources indicated the MTA and Local 100 were close to a deal in October, with Governor Paterson's support, for three 4-percent raises over three years. The agreement, according to statements by several officials, was jettisoned at Mayor Bloomberg's insistence because he did not want to set such a pattern before he settled a contract with District Council 37 that provided only two 4-percent hikes.

"Obviously, the worsening of the economy has not helped," Mr. Toussaint said.

Strike Wouldn't Have Been Option

Striking was an unlikely option for the union, as virtually no talk of a possible work stoppage took place among Local 100 officials, and Mr. Toussaint stated in an affidavit last year that the union had no intention of leading another walk-out.

An arbitration panel had imposed the current Local 100 wage pact, which contained virtually the same terms members rejected by seven votes after the 2005 strike.

Ulmer Park Depot-based Bus Operator Tommy McNally said that workers in his depot were upset that members would not have a say on contract terms.

"We're not even going to get a vote on it," he said.

A more cynical reading of the situation came from Mr. Toussaint's former supporter and current arch-foe, Track Inspector John Samuelsen, who has vowed to challenge him in the June election. The way he described it, the only way Mr. Toussaint could fund three 4-percent raises was to agree to Regional Bus language that would establish a single seniority list for bus workers currently spread out among three different divisions.

A Way to Deflect Blame?

Establishing these terms in the contract, several union sources have said, would not be acceptable to many bus members because they would lose certain seniority rights in the consolidation. Going to arbitration and getting such an award would be a way for Mr. Toussaint to deflect blame, Mr. Samuelsen said, because he needs bus members' votes for the upcoming election.

"The very giveback that's going to fund the contract is unacceptable to those who he's looking to support him," Mr. Samuelsen said. "The wage increases in the union are going to be funded off the backs of our bus departments."

The notion that Mr. Toussaint could use arbitration as a way to insulate himself from criticism if the contract award contains givebacks is one that also applies for the MTA. There would have been tabloid editorial protests, as well as some public outrage, if the authority voluntarily granted raises those entities considered too generous in light of the MTA's financial situation and the fare hikes.

On more than one occasion in the past, public employers and unions have privately told arbitrators what contract terms would be mutually acceptable rather than asking them to choose between the two sides' arguments.

Mr. Toussaint insisted that in the dead-end negotiations he was able to take some disadvantageous management proposals off the table, saying, "I have taken every step available to limit our exposure to any decision that would damage our interests."