Severian
21st January 2006, 12:32
Here we go again.
After putting New Yorkers through a crippling three-day strike last month, city transit workers have dropped another bombshell - rejecting a tentative contract by a margin thinner than a MetroCard.
After more than 22,000 votes were finally counted yesterday, the three-year offer went down to defeat by seven votes, 11,234 to 11,227.
While the shocking rejection doesn't mean another strike is imminent, it did expose bitter divisions in the Transport Workers Union Local 100, as negotiators from both sides head back to the bargaining table.
That's from the New York Daily News, (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/384544p-326362c.html) which elsewhere gets downright rabid in its hatred for the uppity transit workers.
El Diaro/La Prensa (http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/detail.aspx?section=25&desc=Editorial&id=1321265) is the most sympathetic to the transit workers of the New York daily papers:
It`s a development that is surprising but not totally unexpected.
This is a union that went on strike for the first time in 25 years last month, in freezing cold weather, just five days before Christmas. Though they were not able to shut down the city completely, the transit workers were certainly able to slow things down considerably, in terms of travel and economics. Because the state Taylor law prohibits government employees from striking, the union and its members incurred millions of dollars in fines.
Still, a vocal group of union members felt the leadership had conceded too much, and urged workers to vote no on the contract. A key concern for the workers has been Gov. George Pataki`s threats to veto a provision that called for the MTA to refund pension contributions to the workers, refnds that average $8,400 per eligible worker. Pataki says the payments would reward workers who carried out an illegal strike.
Also, for the first time, union members would have had to pay for health insurance, a precedent Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to establish as he heads into negotiations with other municipal workers.
The health insurance payments were a significant concession, and once you've conceded the principle of paying for medical benefits, its hard to keep the bosses from expanding the payments in future contracts. The workers' resolve in refusing to accept that is commendable.
What's more, it's always encouraging to see the rank and file asserting themselves, and refusing to take whatever deal the labor bureaucracy says they should take. The worst thing about the way Touissant ended the strike, was that he did it without consulting the ranks, and it's hard to walk back out on strike again...essentially he tried to take the decision on the contract out of the hands of the membership by presenting them with a fait accompli. The membership has just declined to go along with that.
After putting New Yorkers through a crippling three-day strike last month, city transit workers have dropped another bombshell - rejecting a tentative contract by a margin thinner than a MetroCard.
After more than 22,000 votes were finally counted yesterday, the three-year offer went down to defeat by seven votes, 11,234 to 11,227.
While the shocking rejection doesn't mean another strike is imminent, it did expose bitter divisions in the Transport Workers Union Local 100, as negotiators from both sides head back to the bargaining table.
That's from the New York Daily News, (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/384544p-326362c.html) which elsewhere gets downright rabid in its hatred for the uppity transit workers.
El Diaro/La Prensa (http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/detail.aspx?section=25&desc=Editorial&id=1321265) is the most sympathetic to the transit workers of the New York daily papers:
It`s a development that is surprising but not totally unexpected.
This is a union that went on strike for the first time in 25 years last month, in freezing cold weather, just five days before Christmas. Though they were not able to shut down the city completely, the transit workers were certainly able to slow things down considerably, in terms of travel and economics. Because the state Taylor law prohibits government employees from striking, the union and its members incurred millions of dollars in fines.
Still, a vocal group of union members felt the leadership had conceded too much, and urged workers to vote no on the contract. A key concern for the workers has been Gov. George Pataki`s threats to veto a provision that called for the MTA to refund pension contributions to the workers, refnds that average $8,400 per eligible worker. Pataki says the payments would reward workers who carried out an illegal strike.
Also, for the first time, union members would have had to pay for health insurance, a precedent Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to establish as he heads into negotiations with other municipal workers.
The health insurance payments were a significant concession, and once you've conceded the principle of paying for medical benefits, its hard to keep the bosses from expanding the payments in future contracts. The workers' resolve in refusing to accept that is commendable.
What's more, it's always encouraging to see the rank and file asserting themselves, and refusing to take whatever deal the labor bureaucracy says they should take. The worst thing about the way Touissant ended the strike, was that he did it without consulting the ranks, and it's hard to walk back out on strike again...essentially he tried to take the decision on the contract out of the hands of the membership by presenting them with a fait accompli. The membership has just declined to go along with that.