As the MTA gears up to consider service cuts across the board, they will inevitably look to reduce staffing levels at all levels. Already, MTA CEO and Chairman Jay Walder has pledged to trim some of the management fat, and he may look to ask the transit agencies’ various unions to suffer through employee cuts as well. The TWU’s new leadership, though, has pledged to fight any layoffs. New president John Samuelsen has appointed his rival Curtis Tate to head up the TWU’s political action committee, and he vowed to unite a fractured union in the face of potential job losses. “Infighting has crippled us,” Samuelsen said to the Daily News. “I’m looking to unify the union and get ready to face off against the MTA and the threat of layoffs.”
This is, of course, a not unexpected result. After all, one of the union’s main roles is to defend its workers’ job. but it’s a rather confrontational one this early in the process. The MTA’s deficit is coming about, in part, because of guaranteed union raises over the next three years, and the agency is going to be cutting services — from subway and bus lines to personnel and everything in between — across the board. If the TWU is fighting, in the face of public discontent over service cuts, for every job, the average straphanger may not be too sympathetic to the union’s plight and will probably side with no one.
One day, the MTA and TWU will have to resolve their differences and come together for the best interests of both sides. A broke MTA won’t be able to pay its workers, and a union willing to fight to the death at every mention of bad news will find it tough to win allies.
16 comments
“A union willing to fight to the death at every mention of bad news will find it tough to win allies.”
I would agree, but layoffs hardly comes under the routine “bad news” category. Unions, at their most pure, are for three things: securing a contract, providing benefits, and fighting layoffs. Of course Samuelsen is going to armor up at the mention of job cuts.
The unsourced threat of layoffs.
It’s true that Sameulsen will and should fight layoffs. As you say, that’s why we have unions and organized labor. Still, wait until the layoff plans are officially acknowledged and revealed before going to the mat for something that might not come about. It’s a better political strategy.
Fair enough. But it’s the usual game. Threats of layoffs – union threatens back. Actual layoffs – union does the usual stuff, protests, lobbying, etc. Same dance as always.
During the recent recession, many businesses around the country reduced pay across the board to avoid layoffs. The public knows this, and will not support a union for refusing to share in the burden when most other people have. The MTA, as a result of arbitration, has to increase pay with reduced revenue. Raising taxes in a weak economy is not a rational option, and no level of government will fill the gap. Union labor is the MTA’s greatest expense. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see where this is going.
If the TWU was smart, they would negotiate for a reduced workforce by attrition only, and restructure the raises to kick in as revenues rise.
I doubt that they will voluntarily yield an inch. This could push the MTA to explore a bankruptcy option. If the MTA is able to go that route, and chooses to do so, then the TWU could lose almost everything.
If the TWU was smart, they would negotiate [to] restructure the raises to kick in as revenues rise.
I certainly wouldn’t – we see that happen in California – every time LA County adds $20 to the transportation budget, Sacramento sees $20 that they can cut. All it does is encourage the localities to not further fund transportation. A similar thing will happen here – legislators will whine that any further MTA funding will simply be “given away” to their employees and refuse to revisit funding.
The other is true – many successful employee representatives are getting traction by saying “instead of layoffs, let’s reduce hours or eat a temporary pay cut.” But MTA has gone so far out of the way to burn their bridges with the TWU that I wouldn’t look for that kind of agreement to emerge here. Neither party trusts each other here, especially after that arbitration appeal, and implementing those kinds of decisions requires that the parties trust each other to not use the agreement as damaging precedent.
People seem to think that the best thing for MTA to do is to constantly war with the TWU, but that will just lead to things like what we have now – you need to have good relations with your Unions, not just righteous anger.
Under Sanders leadership they were working for the first time towards better labor relations and he got run out of town and ridiculed for it.
That was one of the most encouraging things about Sanders. He was willing to more than half way, and that would have led to progress.
As I see it, and I could easily be wrong because I’m an outsider, we may be back to two entities that don’t want to go half way. It seems like each side only wants to go 45% in, and that small middle gap becomes very toxic very fast.
I certainly agree with the way that budgeting gets shuffled around when different jurisdictions are involved. A classic example is a state lottery for education. That said, with or without a restructuring of raises, this problem will persist.
I still believe that the TWU should offer to restructure their raises. It could be done in a way where at the end of the contract, union workers are making more than the current agreement in exchange for reduced, or eliminated raises at the beginning. That gets the MTA through the tough times, and it gets the TWU something when things turn around. For example, right now the TWU will get 11.3% over three years. What if became 12%, but with nothing in the first year, and 2% in the second? Would that really be terrible?
This is true, but it works both ways.
You have to realize that the first year of the 3 year TWU contract is laready over and they haven’t gotten anything yet. Event though the TA lost there ridiculous appeal of the binding arbitration that makes the taylor law they still haven’t recognized the new contract!!! It’s been over a month since the appeal was lost and still no word.
Good points. You know more about the details than I. I was really throwing out a concept because I believe that the TWU needs to give some, but in a way where no one looses a job.
It would be great to see a solution to the current budgetary problems without creating new problems.
Raising taxes in a weak economy is not a rational option
Um, why is that a less rational option than cutting spending? Both are contractionary, and if anything raising taxes on the rich is less so because it comes out of personal savings and not personal spending.
Neither is a good choice, but new taxes in a weak economy – especially at the state or local level – is more likely to encourage capital flight. New York can’t afford that.
That’s interesting that you assume that new taxes would be on “the rich.” Do you have any idea how easy it is for the very wealthy to legally evade state and local income taxes? It works like this. Buy a home in Florida. Register to vote in Florida. Spend one more day every year in Florida than in New York. Bingo! Legal tax evasion.
Also, income taxes, which I believe is what you are implying, are taxes on productivity, not on savings.
“Spend one more day every year in Florida than in New York.” And there’s the rub. People don’t want to spend one more day in Florida than in New York each year. See, for example, Captain Intangibles’ tax foibles: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311830,00.html. There are other tax shelters that are easy to take advantage of, but the Florida-residency requirement isn’t one of them.
Spending one more day in Florida than in New York is annoying and difficult, and few people do it. That’s why even less snazzy states that increase income taxes, such as Maryland, did not see this sort of capital flight.
To me, “the rich” aren’t just the super-wealthy, but also the rest of the top quintile. If you hike taxes by 1% on income above $100,000 a year, then most of the extra tax will be paid by people making $100,000-200,000 a year, not $1,000,000+. The $100,000-200,000 a year people like to think of themselves as middle class, but they’re not, not even in Manhattan.
Income taxes are taxes on income, which goes partly to consumption and partly to savings. The part that goes to savings rises with income, while at the very bottom, people save nothing, so any tax hike or benefit cut goes out of consumption. Relative to the usual alternative of sales taxes, income taxes are taxes on savings.
(P.S. the question of whether Americans save enough in general is separate. There’s probably a case for a national sales tax in the 10% range – but only after the economy recovers. In recessions, the government should encourage spending, not saving.)
Fighting layoffs doesn’t mean a total unwillingness to compromise. What the TWU leadership is doing is rallying their forces to try and provide as strong a bargaining position as possible. On the other side, it is in the MTA management’s interest to try and layoff as many union employees as they feel they can get by without. The two, strong sides then come to the table and haggle something out.
Who in their right mind would go into haggling with a publicly weak position? Would any of you go into a car dealership and just take the first offer that they make? No, you’d go in there with a strong position and try to stand firm as much as possible to get as good a deal as you can.
I really wish people would stop ragging on unions for wanting a strong bargaining position. They’re just doing exactly what their members want. It’s democracy in action.
I’m not speaking about unions in general. In the last few years, unions around this country have worked with various companies to get through the recession. They don’t want their companies to go out of business. I’m speaking about the unions that are contracted with the MTA, and the TWU specifically.
The unions contracted with the MTA are different. It is highly unlikely that the MTA will be shut down, so they can push for terms that otherwise would not be economically viable. If the MTA doesn’t have enough money, they don’t cooperate. They demand political solutions. Everyone else has to pay, and no one else benefits. Democracy in action? You wouldn’t want to put that to a vote.