The TWU and the MTA are engaged in something of a fight right now. After agreeing to binding arbitration over a labor contract, the MTA has appealed an award of an 11 percent raise for the TWU on the grounds that the arbitration panel made errors of law in considering the agency’s ability to pay. Despite the use of the word “binding” in the arbitration format, this appeal is legally permissible, and TWU workers have been loath to recognize that truth.
In a sense, then, as the MTA and TWU are engaged in a legal fight, the two sides are also engaged in a public relations battle. The TWU is trying to portray the MTA as a management-heavy organization intent on paying its countless executives far more than they deserve. On the other hand, the MTA is trying to make the case that the 11 percent raises over the next three years will foist more unscheduled fare hikes onto a public already paying too much for its subway service.
And so yesterday, at Jay Walder’s first MTA Board, the TWU opted to take the low road. Andreeva Pinder, a station agent and TWU executive, resorted to a playground insult in her discussion about the elmination of the station agents. “Month after month we beseech you to safeguard your riders. But you people are so removed from reality,” Pinder said. “You guys are just a bunch of doody-heads.”
That is a direct quote from Pinder’s testimony. She got up in front of a bunch of MTA executives and called them doody heads. No wonder people don’t think too highly of MTA employees. Pinder, as those with long memories may recall, once had to be forcibly escorted out of an MTA Board meeting when she spoke for 30 minutes instead of the allotted three.
Words such as these do no one any favors. First, Pinder’s initial claims — that the lack of station agents has led to some sort of MTA-produced anarchy — simply isn’t true. At the entrances now lacking station agents, the subways still operate with the same old efficiency. Crime is not up, and straphangers are not getting hopelessly lost. Meanwhile, resorting to childish names might sound funny at the time, but it’s tough to earn the respect of a skeptical public even if Pinder may have tried to make a valid point.
In the end, this fight will continue, and if yesterday’s words were any indication, it may get nastier before it is resolved. I’m no expert in arbitration law and cannot proffer an opinion on the outcome of the MTA’s appeal. If the courts, though, side with the agency, an all-out labor war could ensue.
* * *
In other arbitration news, John Zuccotti, the arbitrator who awarded the TWU its raises, billed the MTA $900 an hour for his work, and the new MTA leadership is outraged. The bill came to $400,000 for his services, and although the MTA and the TWU are to split the total, anonymous MTA board members were outraged that former head Elliot Sander negotiated such a rate. George Nicolau, another arbitrator, charged just $34,000. Someone somewhere down the line negotiated a bad deal.
9 comments
Paying those executives any amount of money is far more than they deserve.
You know, this has got to be one of the least sympathetic unions ever.
And Walder responded, “I’m rubber, you’re glue …”
i’m the son of a TWU bus driver, and a sympathiser of the union’s interests, as i know that their actions have immeasurably improved the lives of their members, their members children, and the transit riding public.
but i’m just mortified by this. this pinder person should be repudiated by the union leadership. today, like.
And keep in mind, she’s a station agent. That potty mouth belongs to someone who’s job it is to represent NYCT to the public. I just hope for her sake that she doesn’t work the 4 line.
That was good for a laugh. A Doody-Head?I am a PROUD Station Agent and Local 100 member but that was an embarassing display of who is in charge of the Union.I heard more creative knock-knock and yo momma jokes.She does NOT speak on my behalf with that kind of statement.I honestly do think the MTA should stick to the arbitration tho because they AGREED to it with the swoop of a pen.If they didn’t agree to it,than why did they sign on the dotted line in the first place.
I agree that the MTA should honor a contract it signed…. and then never, EVER, sign another one that’s greater than one year in length.
They didn’t sigh a contract. They agreed to go to binding arbitration. Then, they appealed the ruling in a legal permissible move. Why should they honor something that harms them before exhausting their appeals?
Everyone knows that if the MTA won (in which every single one of you wishes) in using pinder’s speech mentality they would have told us…arbitration ruled triple stamp no backsees you can’t fight it nah nah nah.If this gets struck down,that not only will no union in their right mind go to arbitration or trust management,contracts won and lost by every single union/management will be brought back into court,scrutinized and fought,it would not only destroy trust,morale on the workforce but it would seriously set back judges and fighting real criminals and deadbeats,lawyers would have a field day as well.If any judge threw this out,I don’t want to even think about the aftermath. If you thought relationships were fragile between unions and management…….oh brother.