… the legislature could start a new tier anyway.
Which makes the strike all the more remarkable. Think about it - the TWU didn’t strike because the current members were being greedy. The current workers pretty much got what they wanted (pay raise of 3%, 4%, and 3.5%; maintained current retirement at 55; maintained current contributions to pension plan).
The breakdown occured in negotiations when the MTA, at the last moment, threw a monkey wrench into the processings by asking for new members to contribute more towards retirement (which, if I understand things properly, the MTA isn’t allowed to do and is a violation of the Taylor law).
If it the strike was solely about extracting more concessions from the MTA, then why didn’t the union agree to the terms? After all, the new pension requirements wouldn’t affect current workers. The current workers got pretty much what they expected. Why would current workers care whether or not future workers had the same benefits?
I’ll tell you why - because they knew that if they agreed to what the MTA was proposing, then it would allow the establishment of a two-tier system. And establishing a two-tier system is a common tactic by management to pit worker against worker in a union, further eroding union solidarity.
In other words, the strike wasn’t about greed - it was about principle. The TWU drew a line in the stand and declared (by their actions) they they weren’t about to roll over and take it anymore. They know what the stakes are.
If the TWU eventually agrees to an MTA proposal that effectively creates a two-tier system, then the strike was for naught.
As I’ve already pointed out to you, this was not a last minute change. The last minute change was an increase in the (higher) percentage the MTA wanted new members to contribute towards penisons, in exchange for concessions on every other front. Increased contributions from new members was an MTA demand from the start.
I’ve been following the coverage of the negotiations and strike closely, and I haven’t heard anything at all like this. Cite?
This is correct. The increased retirement age of 62 applied only to future workers. My error. Unsurprisingly, the MTA retracted this proposal under pressure.
My mistake - what was the original percentage that the MTA was asking new members to contribute?
Following link:
"City union leaders and state lawmakers keep trying to point that out. They say the MTA itself trampled a key provision of the Taylor Law by demanding that TWU President Roger Toussaint accept an inferior pension plan for future members of his union as a condition of a new labor contract.
Section 201 of the law clearly states that “no such retirement benefits shall be negotiated pursuant to this article, and any benefits so negotiated shall be void.”
Only the Legislature has the legal authority to approve changes in public employee pension systems."
The TWU could have continued to negotiate for weeks or months after the contract expired, and perhaps negotiated that demand away. They could have gone to the binding arbitration that the TWU got added to the Taylor law. The binding arbitration certainly wouldn’t have included anything about a two-tiered pension.They didn’t. They struck instead.
I don’t know that the current membership really did. I know the executive board seemed pretty divided, but that says nothing really about the members.
I’ve been a member of both the NYC and NYS retirement systems. Tier 4- the last- in both. I’ve never seen the pension tiers pit worker against worker.
I agree with you that the strike wasn’t about greed on the part of the rank and file members. But I don’t think it was about principle, either. I suspect it had more to do with internal power struggles within the union leadership and/or union leaders wanting to be added to the "History " section of the TWU webpage. I don’t know if you’ve ever been a union member, but union leaders sometimes put their own interests before those of their members. I’m not sure if the rank and file really understood what the stakes were and are. Some of those on TV seemed to assume the Taylor law fines would be waived. I doubt if 1% of the members have any idea how the loss of dues checkoff can cripple a union.
Except that the strike may be for naught anyway- the legislature doesn’t need anyone’s agreement to add another tier. The strike may have just made them more likely to do so.
It is my understanding that terms derived from binding arbitration would not have been subject to the union ratification. It seems pretty obvious why they would find this unacceptable.
True - the legislature doesn’t need anyone’s agreement to add another tier. But would there not be political ramifications for state legislators doing so? It’s much easier for the legislature to add another tier if both parties agree (MTA/TWU) to petition the assembly to do so (less political fallout); might not be so easy (politically) if they have to make the decision on their own.
This is apparently what the MTA was trying to get. Because the pension changes can’t be negotiated in the contract.
Management can’t simply force a union to accept anything. Only an arbitrator or the legislature (for units which don’t have arbitration) can. The old contract governs until the new one is ratified, even if it takes two years or more.
Maeglin,
Could you clarify this? I’m trying to understand the reason for why Toussaint and the TWU would be reluctant to go to binding arbitration.
Sure, it’s easier if they both agree to petition for a new tier- no doubt that’s why it was one of the MTA’s demands. But it can happen even if the TWU doesn’t agree to it, and even if the MTA doesn’t ask for it. The MTA will now almost certainly request it , with or without TWU’s agreement. Which way will the legislators go? Most of them don’t represent the New York City area. Those who do have more constituents who were hurt by the strike than constituents who are MTA employees. I believe most of them are Republicans like Pataki, and upstaters have no love for the city and its public transportation to begin with. It may now have become politically easier to add the tier than not to add it, simply because of the strike.
The only obvious reason I can see is because they believed they could get more from the MTA than they could from arbitration. In which case they should have continued to negotiate , and the pension issue wasn’t really the sticking point- arbitration certainly wouldn’t have included that. Most unions would love to have arbitration, because it seems that as a general rule, the union does better in arbitration than the employer.The arbitration terms aren’t subject to the employer’s agreement ,either, and if Toussaint thought the arbitration would keep the health insurance free and give 7% a year for two years with no pension issue he would have gone for it.
3%, up from the 2% that current members pay.
Thanks for the link. I wasn’t aware that changes to the pension plan work that way.