Transportation

A Series Of Strikes

December 16, 2005 | by Bruce Schaller

Brinksmanship in contract negotiations between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its largest union, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100, left New Yorkers feeling that “no news is good news” as they dressed for work on a rainy Friday morning, hours after the union’s contract with the MTA expired. Subways and buses kept rolling as contract negotiations broke up at 4:30 a.m. with no word from either side.

Three hours later, Transport Workers Union President Roger Toussaint announced that the union board had authorized a “series of strikes,” starting with two private bus lines in Queens recently absorbed into the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. These workers have been without a contract for three years. Toussaint said the union was prepared to continue to bargain, but he also denounced the MTA for bad-faith bargaining. He indicated that the union would broaden the strike to “MTA properties” if no settlement was reached, but did not specify a deadline. "We have been left with no choice," he said at around 7:15 Friday morning, after the morning rush hour had already begun.

Dim Prospects For A Settlement

In the days and then hours leading up to the December 15 midnight deadline, events seemed to be building inevitably towards a strike:

The city filed suit seeking fines of $25,000 a day for every worker, doubling for every day of the strike, and additional millions from the union.

MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow suggested at a news conference that arbitration â€“- a course favored by the union after the 1980 strike -â€“ could break the impasse. TWU President Roger Toussaint denounced Kalikow’s remarks and insisted that union members wanted to settle their own fate.

Transit workers rallied with the cry, “Shut it down!”

Dissident union members tried to disrupt a Toussaint news conference, highlighting internal pressures that were not favorable to a settlement. The union distributed instructions to members on how to shut down subways and buses.

The city readied an emergency plan to set up carpool staging areas and park-and-ride lots, limit traffic into Manhattan, and open schools two hours later throughout the city. Private employers followed suit with plans for buses and van shuttle services and even day care for workers whose nannies might not be able to show up for work.

Public comments on progress in the talks on Thursday were also not optimistic. Toussaint said chances of a strike were “50-50.” The head MTA negotiator, Gary Dellaverson, said there had simply not been enough negotiations to bridge the gap. MTA Board Member Barry Feinstein, a former Teamsters local president, noted that smaller issues which should have been resolved by the last day of negotiations had not been.

Kalikow joined negotiations himself shortly before the midnight deadline, but no settlement could be reached. In announcing the strike, Toussaint said that Kalikow's attempt to solve major differences between the union and the authority in so short a time was insulting.

Points Of Contention

The main issues continued to be wages, pension benefits, health coverage and work rules:

Wage increases: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority offered two wage increases of three percent each over 27 months. The union sought eight percent annual wage increases.

Pension benefits: The MTA wants to move the retirement age from 55 to 62 for newly hired employees and is asking for higher employee contributions from new workers. The TWU countered with a proposal to reduce the age for full retirement benefits to 50.

Health coverage: The MTA is asking for higher co-payments for prescription drugs and office visits. The MTA also wants new employees to contribute two percent toward health care premiums. The union opposes these changes.

Job responsibilities: Another controversial area is the MTA’s desire to broaden job responsibilities for certain titles. The MTA originally asked to eliminate conductors from some trains so that train operators (“motormen” in the old parlance) would open doors and make announcements as well as operate the train. The TWU has been fiercely opposed to this proposal and won an arbitration ruling on the issue. The MTA more recently proposed to convert conductors to customer service agents who would roam the train rather than stay in the conductors' booth. Similarly, the MTA wants the former token clerks to move around subway stations and help riders. The union has expressed reservations about employees’ safety in stations, and passenger safety if conductors’ duties are changed.

Differences From 2002

The task of reaching a settlement has been complicated by differences this year compared to three years ago, when negotiators stopped the clock to reach a settlement the day after the contract expired. Unlike three years ago, the MTA is running a $1 billion surplus, so the union feels there is less of an argument that the MTA cannot afford more generous wages and benefits. The MTA replies that the surplus is generated by a blip in tax revenues that will not last. The MTA expects to confront deep deficits in coming years and plans fare increases in 2007 and 2009.

Paths To Settlement

Several paths to a settlement still remain. While the TWU has opposed binding arbitration, according to the TWU Web site, the union championed the current law that provides for arbitration and won a 21.5 percent wage increase, over three years, in 1982 through arbitration.

The contract issues also lend themselves to compromise. The MTA undoubtedly could increase the wage hike from the three precent it has offered. It would appear that changes to the retirement age are unlikely given the cost of the TWU proposal on the one hand and the need for state legislation to implement the MTA’s proposal. A middle ground for payments for health benefits and changes in work rules could be found by modifying or phasing in any changes.

Meanwhile, New Yorkers continue to wait for word on whether the two sides will find common ground, or whether the cold and wet holiday season will turn increasingly ugly.

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â

Bracing For A Transit Strike

December 15, 2005 | by Bruce Schaller

For the second time in three years, New Yorkers are bracing for a transit strike during the busy and cold December holiday season.

To prevent a showdown, a myriad of issues need to be resolved between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its largest union, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100. Central issues to the contract dispute are:

Wage increases: The MTA on December 7 offered wage increases of three percent next year and two percent the following year. Union officials criticized this offer but did not formally reject it.

Pension benefits: The MTA wants to move the retirement age from 55 to 62 for newly hired employees and is asking for those new workers to contribute more towards their pensions. Union president Roger Toussaint has voiced opposition to “selling out our unborn” in reference to new workers and said that the current “25/55” (25 years of service, retire at 55) must be maintained.

Job responsibilities: Another controversial area is the agency's desire to broaden job responsibilities for certain titles. It originally asked to eliminate conductors from some trains so that train operators (“motormen” in the old parlance) would open doors and make announcements as well as operate the train. The union has been fiercely opposed to this proposal and won an arbitration ruling on the issue. The agency more recently proposed to convert conductors to customer service agents who would roam the train rather than stay in the conductors booth. Similarly, the MTA wants the former token clerks to move around subway stations and help riders. The union has expressed reservations about employees’ safety in stations, and passenger safety if conductors’ duties are changed.

Unlike three years ago, the MTA is running a $1 billion surplus, so the union feels there is less of an argument that the MTA cannot afford more generous wages and benefits. The MTA replies that the surplus is generated by a blip in tax revenues that will not last. The MTA expects to confront deep deficits in coming years and plans fare increases in 2007 and 2009.

That may be part of the reason that in its latest proposal, the MTA put forward a two-year contract offer rather than a three-year contract, the recent practice. Two years from now, MTA deficits will set a different tone for contract negotiations.

First Strike Since 1980?

Will there be a strike? The possibility seems very real. There is also strong pressure on Roger Toussaint, the union president, who needs a favorable contract to head off the disaffection among union members that followed the 2002 contract settlement.

On the other hand, TWU members also authorized a strike in December 2002, yet the contract was settled after negotiations that went a day past the deadline. The vote to authorize a strike has value as a way to apply pressure on the MTA, whether or not the authorization is exercised. The union and its members face severe sanctions if they do strike, which is illegal under the state’s Taylor Law. In 1980 the TWU paid a $1.5 million fine and workers were penalized two days pay for each day on strike, a total of $18 million.

Another possible option is binding arbitration. The MTA has called for arbitration if no settlement is reached before the contract deadline. The TWU has opposed arbitration; Toussaint has said that it “removes union members from having a say on their contract.” Yet according to the union Web site, the union championed the current law that provides for arbitration and won a 21.5 percent wage increase, over three years, in 1982 through arbitration.

The 1980 strike is widely seen to have been won by the MTA after the city, led by Mayor Edward I. Koch, continued to function. The 11-day strike had lasting impact on the city in a variety of ways, large and small. Women continued to wear sneakers to walk to work (with heels in handbags.) Jitney vans in Brooklyn and Queens, many of which made their debut in 1980, have become a part of many people’s commute.

Still In The Dark Ages

Since the 1980 transit strike, new subway cars and buses, renovated stations and more-frequent service has modernized the city’s vast public transportation system. Unfortunately, one thing that has not changed is MTA-TWU labor relations, which remain in the dark ages. While some transit agencies in other cities have made great strides in focusing labor management efforts on replacing confrontation with problem-solving that benefits both sides (see the Mineta Transportation Institute’s Transit Labor Relations Guide in pdf format), today’s relationship between the sides is far from ideal.

Real progress would be not only settling the contract before December 15, but also tackling the much harder task of preventing a recurrence two or three years from now.

Transportation Bond Act's Passage May Bring Other Transit Issues To The Fore

November 11, 2005 | by Bruce Schaller

The election results contained much good news for transportation in New York City. Voters statewide approved the $2.9 billion transportation bond act by a surprisingly large margin -- 55 percent to 45 percent -- five years after narrowly rejecting a $3.9 billion measure. The bond act provides $1.45 billion to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) five-year capital construction program.

Voter approval came after elected officials and civic and advocacy organizations came together to support the ballot proposition. Supporters raised $1.8 million for advertisements, flyers and an election-day operation to remind people to find the proposition on the ballot.

What Passage Will Mean

The bond act allocates $450 million for the first phase of the Second Avenue subway, and $450 million for bringing Long Island Rail Road trains to Grand Central Terminal. Passage of the bond act makes it almost certain that the federal government will contribute $4 billion for these projects between now and 2012 to round out their financing. MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow expressed confidence that his agency will reach agreement with the Federal Transit Administration on long-term federal funding agreements.

The bond act also commits $100 million for a rail link between lower Manhattan and Kennedy airport, $115 million for purchase of new subway and commuter railroad cars, $90 million for new buses; and $161 million for track replacement and tunnel lighting. In addition to transit projects, the bond act will fund tens of millions of dollars in highway improvement projects in New York City.

What Bloomberg's Victory Might Mean (i.e. Congestion Pricing?)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s victory was also viewed as a potentially promising development by transportation analysts who are hoping that the mayor will give more focus to transportation needs in his second term than he did in his first term. They hope that he will tackle the politically controversial idea of congestion pricing in Manhattan, which could reduce congestion and provide funds for better bus and subway service. The New York Times quoted Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group, saying that, “We have every indication that the city is prepared to look closely at that.” Bloomberg officials warned, however, that the mayor has been focusing on winning re-election and has not yet decided what initiatives to pursue.

Transit Security,

Voter approval of the bond may mean a broadening from the almost singular focus on financing needs to a range of other issues. This year has seen the adoption the bond act, a new five-year capital plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and a six-year federal transportation bill that will provide increased funding to the transportation authority. With tax revenues exceeding expectations, the MTA is experiencing a surprising budget surplus. The surplus is unlikely to last very long and the MTA continues to forecast a fare increase in 2007. Nevertheless, financing of transit will compete for attention with several other issues.

One such issue is transit security. The MTA is seeking to use high-tech means to monitor activity in subway stations and catch possible terrorists. Whether this technology will actually work and whether the MTA can successfully install and operate it remains to be seen.

The MTA's Credibility

Another issue confronting the MTA is its own credibility. Kalikow is the first MTA chairman appointed by Governor George Pataki to take independent stands in favor of transit needs and breathe a greater openness into the MTA. But the effects of the fiasco that accompanied the MTA’s 2003 fare increase, in which the agency was accused by lying about its finances, continue to linger. This was seen most poignantly in the public’s reaction to the MTA’s plan to use part of its surplus to discount fares over the year-end holidays. Man-on-the-street interviews by reporters revealed a deep-seated skepticism about why the MTA would want to say “thank you” to riders with this small holiday gift. Some saw the discounts as an attempt to manipulate the public into voting for the bond act.

Overcrowding

The fact is that although the transit system is vastly improved from 25 years ago, riders’ expectations are also much higher. Revamped stations, new subway cars, fare discounts and a host of other improvements have drawn huge crowds into the subway. Overcrowding is now the system’s biggest problem, inevitably exacerbated whenever there is a service delay. A major challenge for the MTA is to reduce overcrowding in the short term, through signal and communications improvements and management of trains in the tunnels. Riders won’t tolerate waiting until the Second Avenue subway is built.

Better Relations With The Public?

While Kalikow stresses the MTA’s “transparency,” his philosophy is not always evidenced in the workings of the agency. Ask a token booth clerk whether trains are currently diverted for announced construction and you are likely to get a puzzled shrug â€“ why would a token clerk know about such things as what trains are stopping at the station? Ask MTA staff for a report that was completed months ago, and one is likely to be told it is still a “draft,” or that staff are too busy to fulfill formal freedom of information requests for four to six months. Look on the MTA’s website for board minutes or detailed budget information â€“ similar to what one finds for the Los Angeles MTA or other major transit agencies â€“ and the effort will be in vain.

The election brought good news about how the MTA will pay for needed subway and bus improvements. But the task of improving the daily commute remains a daunting challenge.