Transit Labor

During the 2005 transit strike, the MTA had to chain off the entire subway system. (Photo by flickr user h-bomb)

It’s now been 15 days the TWU’s current contract with the MTA expired. In the intervening two weeks, the two sides have gone through the public spectacle of negotiations with one side — the TWU — walking away for a few days in dramatic fashion and the other leaking some demands. As John Samuelsen and Joe Lhota work to find a resolution, the union president says he won’t rule out a strike, but a peaceful resolution is the more likely path toward a new labor pact.

For New Yorkers, even the talk of a transit strike is enough to send us back to those cold three days in 2005 when the subways did not run. Just over six years ago, the TWU, defying the law, did indeed strike, and New Yorkers were left without subway service as Christmas neared. As I was for New York’s defining moments of the first decade of the 21st Century, I missed the transit strike. I was in D.C. that week, not due back in New York for a few more days, and by the time I returned to the city, the strike was over. Today, I want to revisis that strike.

Those days in December were heady times for the MTA and the TWU. Concerned with out-year budget projections of steep deficits, the MTA wanted to cut labor costs. In order to restrain pension spending, the authority proposed pension cuts and called upon the TWU to allow conductors to walk through train cars. It was viewed by many as another step along the path toward conductorless cars, and the union balked.

The city began to prepare for a costly strike as negotiations dragged on, and even though the TWU rank and file authorized a strike, analysts were skeptical. Such a strike would, many said, be in violation of the Taylor Law, and the leadership would be risking a lot by leading a strike. The city, meanwhile, was preparing to throw the book at anyone who struck illegally.

As business owners tried to arrange alternate transportation for their workers, the MTA continued to enjoy a December of cut rates. That winter, you may recall, the authority used an end-of-year surplus to offer $1 rides for all pay-per-ride straphangers. It all came to head on December 20, though, as union leadership decided to strike after failing to reach an agreement with the MTA.

With temperatures in the upper 20s, straphangers had to battle the elements and massive crowds as cab share plans were initiated and car trips into Manhattan were carefully limited. A state judge levied massive fines against the TWU as an organization and against its leadership personally for the strike. The Times called it an “unnecessary strike.”

On Day Two of the strike, New Yorkers grew weary. Traffic marred the streets while many simply worked from home. It was a cold winter day for tourists, shoppers, business people and families who could not escape the confines of their neighborhood, and Judge Theodore T. Jones threatened then-TWU President Roger Toussaint with jail time over the strike. On the third day, after 60 excruciating hours, the strike ended. State mediators had convinced the two sides to work toward a deal, and the MTA seemed willing to grant generous raises while dropping demands to raise the retirement age from 55 to 62. The TWU seemed willing to take an increase in pension contributions as well.

Across the city, businesses bemoaned the losses with lost revenue estimated at half a billion dollars. Roger Toussaint faced a short jail sentence, and the union lost its ability for automatic dues check-offs. Eventually, leadership agreed not to authority illegal strikes in exchange for the restoration of that right, but it took the TWU a few years to recover from that strike.

Today, as the MTA is demanding a net-zero labor increase, and the union wants some small raise in its contract, the two sides are at different places than they were six years ago. The union seemingly recognizes the MTA’s financial situation, and the MTA will hold a firm line while keeping dialogue moving forward. The last strike was a reminder of how reliant the city is on its subway system, and while, with no deal in place, the vague threat hovers above the negotiations, I doubt we’ll see a repeat of 2005 any time soon.

As Sunday turned into Monday, the current contract between the MTA and TWU Local 100 expired. The two sides maintained talks throughout the weekend but were unable to come to an agreement. A strike seems exceedingly unlikely as, by all accounts, new MTA CEO and Chairman Joe Lhota and Union President John Samuelsen have a solid weekend relationship, but it’s unclear what impact the end of the contract will have on both the negotiations and transit operations.

In a statement released shortly after midnight, the authority vowed to keep open their talks. Considering the MTA’s current fiscal position, arbitration is not currently under consideration. “Even though the MTA and TWU Local 100 have negotiated through the weekend, we have been unable to reach a settlement prior to the expiration of the contract,” the MTA explained. “While we remain far apart, the MTA will continue to negotiate in good faith in the hope of reaching a settlement.”

The TWU, at least in public, took a more strident tone. Speaking at a rally to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., Samuelsen voted to keep up the fight. “I’m going to go back into the hotel and I’m going to tell the MTA chairman and the governor they can take their set of demands and shove it,” the union leader said. “We’ll fight them until they relent and give us a fair contract.”

Pete Donohue of The Daily News had more:

The MTA demands include establishing a new class of part-time bus drivers, five unpaid vacation days and overtime after 40 hours — instead of after eight hours in a day. MTA officials also have said any wage increases must be paid for by work-rule changes that cut costs.

One source close to the negotiations said there appeared to be pressure coming from the Cuomo administration not to grant workers even a small pay increase. The Cuomo administration last year reached deals with the state’s two largest unions that froze pay rates for the first three years of five-year deals…

Despite the bleak outlook Sunday, there was progress on some fronts, sources said. The MTA has agreed to improve the bathroom facilities for female workers in the subway and identify suitable locations for female bus drivers to make pitstops along their routes.

The biggest gap in negotiations ultimately concerns the money. Lhota has vowed to uphold former MTA head Jay Walder’s pledge to maintain a net-zero labor increase while Samuelsen is fighting against it. Simply put, though, the MTA and New York State do not have the money for an increase in the cost of the TWU’s contract. Things aren’t yet at a head, but with the contract expired, the future remains murky.

Without a contract, TWU workers can make their displeasure with the situation known. The union could institute letter-of-the-law slowdowns and other legal measures that can gum up transit operations. It is highly unlikely that the union would strike, but as Jan. 16 dawns, there is no contract in place between the TWU and MTA. Anything is now possible.

In just 30 days from now, the current contract between the TWU and the MTA will expire, and while a strike seems rather unlikely, so too does a smooth resolution of the labor situation. The MTA, under Jay Walder, had pledged a net-zero increase in labor costs, and the authority’s long-term budget planning dictates such a result. Union leaders, on the other hand, realize such a commitment means firings or wage freezers for their members. It’s turning out to be quite a stalemate.

One of the key areas of concern for the MTA focuses around workrules. The authority wants more flexibility in defining jobs. There’s no reason why a station cleaner can’t also address routine maintenance concerns, and yet, as Pete Donohue reported yesterday, the TWU is pushing back on these issues. He writes:

The MTA is seeking dozens of work-rule changes it believes will increase productivity and reduce labor costs. Generally, it wants to break down previously negotiated barriers establishing the different pay rates and tasks for job titles like cleaner and station maintainer.

The Transport Workers Union is willing to negotiate reasonable contract changes, Local 100 President John Samuelsen said. Loading more chores on station cleaners may not fit that description, in his view.

“They don’t have enough cleaners in stations to keep them clean right now, which is why there’s a rat problem,” Samuelsen said. “Taking them away from their duties to do something else doesn’t seem to make sense,” he said. “They have the right to bargain over what they want — but that’s not something we’re interested in doing.”

Of course, as president of the union, Samuelsen won’t admit to any concessions in the pages of a major daily newspaper. They are going to come though one way or another.

As Donohue relates, asking cleaners to “change a light bulb or unclog the toilet” is but one in a series of work rule revisions the authority has requested. The management also would like to require bus drivers to help change tires and refuel their vehicles. The MTA wants to eliminate rest periods at terminals following end-to-end subway runs, and they want to cut the full-time staff who must work at least eight hours by 20 percent. These are no small demands.

Right now, negotiations are in the early stages, and both sides are angling for good press. The MTA though simply cannot afford labor increases. After losing out on a few hundred million dollars as state tax revenues fell short and the payroll tax was partially repealed, a labor increase would put further pressure on the authority’s bottom line. Bigger operational issues — such as system-wide OPTO and overtime reform — might have to wait it out as well. What the next thirty days may bring will have an impact on our transit system one way or another.

Talk about trial by fire. One day after starting as the MTA’s Executive Director, eventual CEO and Chairman Joseph Lhota is set to kick off negotiations with the TWU today, and already, he’s drawing praise from union leaders. Whether he can sustain that initial burst of good will may dictate whether or not the TWU strikes in mid-January as its contract runs out.

In an interview with Brian Lehrer this morning, TWU President John Samuelsen talked at length about the looming negotiations and his relationship with those in charge at the authority. Never one to miss an opportunity to bash the departed Jay Walder, Samuelsen spoke optimistically of the negotiations while stressing the hard line the TWU intends to toe.

“I’m more optimistic regarding having a labor/management relationship with Lhota. That was impossible under his predecessor,” he said. “I think Lhota has demonstrated already a willingness to open a dialogue with the union on a host of issues. I think it was the right thing to do for Lhota to reach out to the union and jointly sign a letter to the district attorneys in the five boroughs.”

As the talk turned to the negotiations, though, Samuelsen stressed how the TWU would not give into threats from management. “We’re not ready to do that,” Samuelsen said of a zero wage increase, “We don’t believe the other unions should have done that. We’re not in those circumstances, and we certainly won’t be bullied into accepting wage freezes by the threat of layoffs…We do not intend to accept zeroes or a wage freeze.”

Bullying seemed to be a common theme. Samuelsen noted how Walder had threatened the MTA with layoffs if they did not drop the three-percent wage hike, awarded to the TWU by an arbitration panel in 2009. Walder was forced to dismiss the workers when the wage hike went through, and Samuelsen claimed a dubious triumph. “Our folks are almost all back to work, and the riding public is still suffering for it,” he said of the service cuts. “We demonstrated last year that we’re not going engage in that type of bully negotiation and we’re not going to do it this time either.”

The key moment came toward the end of Lehrer’s interview when the WNYC host challenged the TWU president on a strike if the contract situation is not resolved by January. Samuelsen hedged. “I’m not going to make any promises, but certainly the union doesn’t want to go on strike and has no intention of striking. But for me to make a promise would be immature…I mean, premature,” he said with an amusing slip of the tongue.

Both the MTA and TWU are in a tough position during the negotiations. The TWU knows Lhota was brought in keep costs down and toe a hard line on wage increases. Lhota knows the TWU will not be forgiving in its ask. As negotiations begin today, two months in advance of a potential strike date, all eyes will be on these two leaders. Can we avoid another mid-winter subway worker walk-out? The ghosts of 2005 sure hope so.

The TWU's petition drive will persuade this rat to leave the subway. (Photo by flickr user Ludovic Burtron)

No one likes seeing rats in the subway. It’s one of those universal things about New York City because rats are disgusting, unpleasant to look at and dirty creatures with which we co-exist uneasily. If it were possible to get rid of them all, the MTA would in a heartbeat.

Lately, though, rats have become more prevalent underground. Transit has cut its cleaning budget, and garbage collection runs have become less frequently. As trash sits, rats take over. Now, though, the TWU wants the MTA to take action.

Yesterday, the Transport Workers Union Local 100 unveiled a new petition effort. They are asking riders to sign a letter that urges the MTA to “adopt a System-Wide Rat Eradication Initiative immediately.” The petition is available online, and TWU operatives were out and about on Wednesday. “We have a huge rat problem,” Kevin Harrington of the TWU said at Parsons/Archer in Queens yesterday.

As union members called for more cleaners, the MTA said they were working on, well, something. “We are working with the city in an effort to find more effective ways of addressing the rodent problem,” the authority said.

It’s hard not to applaud the TWU for this initiative, but there’s no small sense of irony here either. Because of restrictive work rules, the MTA can’t use existing station personnel — many of whom have little to do — to help clean the system. They have employees who sit in their booths but can’t sweep the platforms or help with trash collection. Instead, we have a regimented system of jobs, and with the MTA eying the dismissal of over 200 cleaners in the looming years, the stations will just get dirtier and thus more rat-infested.

Subway Rider, a commenter on Streetsblog, put it best:

They think that attacking, undermining and directing populist and politician anger toward the MTA is a great strategy for them. Yet, all this strategy has done over the last 15 years is undermine the public’s confidence in the MTA and make it easier for Albany politicians to steal funding and resources from TWU employees! The result of TWU strategy is that TWU workers get laid off, their salaries are frozen and cut, their work conditions deteriorate.

But even more significant: The TWU doesn’t seem to get that making the public hate the MTA is bad for TWU workers. As far as the public is concerned, TWU employees are the face of the MTA. It’s the TWU workers who are sitting there napping in bullet-proof glass boxes while garbage collects in piles around them. The public doesn’t get angry at Jay Walder and the MTA board for that. The public looks at that TWU worker sitting in his box doing nothing and thinks: Hmm? Really? Is that a good use of MTA resources? Why is that man sitting in a glass box while machines dispense MetroCards and no one picks up the rubbish or puts up proper signage in this station?

When the group advocating for a solution is part of the problem, it’s hard not to grow cynical.