Most New Yorkers, including most transit workers, were relieved on Dec. 16 at word that a tentative agreement had been reached between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union. None of us, whether we work on the buses and subways or simply ride them, were eager for the hardships that a strike would cause. þþFor many transit workers, however, the relief at not being on strike turned to anger on learning the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, the ÿnew era of cooperationÿ between the M.T.A. and the union — touted by the Local 100 president, Roger Toussaint, and the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow — is seen as a dangerous fantasy. As a result, the contract is facing considerable opposition, with many officers and members urging fellow transit workers to reject the proposal and send the union's negotiating team back to the bargaining table.þþWhile those of us who oppose the agreement recognize that there are important gains in it — like prescription drug coverage for retirees who have not reached the age threshold for Medicare and improvements in the use of sick time — we are convinced that we are being asked to give up too much in return.þþWe are, for example, being asked to give up our protection against layoffs. How could we even consider this when the M.T.A. has, in the past, threatened to eliminate positions for cleaners, mechanics and security personnel? Preserving these union jobs is essential for our members, who depend on them to feed and house their families. But it is also important for New York to ensure that decent jobs with union wages and benefits remain available in our communities.þþWe are being asked to accept the merger of the city's two public bus systems with major concessions from one system and no details on how the two will be put together. We are not opposed to more efficient bus service. But unresolved work rules and practices are decided unilaterally by management. Given the authority's recent record of cutting bus service and its demand to end the protection against layoffs, we are concerned about the M.T.A.'s plans. þþWe are being asked to accept a wage freeze in the first year of the contract. Instead of a raise, we are offered a one-time payment of $1,000, ÿin recognition of substantial past productivity of the work force.ÿ But doesn't that productivity deserve to be rewarded by a real raise?þþAs for the new era of cooperation between the union and the authority, is the M.T.A. cooperating when it refuses to open its books to show how a surplus in the fall of 2002 turned into a projected deficit? Is it cooperating when it insists on eliminating our protection against layoffs? Is it cooperating when it refuses to take seriously the union's proposals for preserving the $1.50 subway and bus fare? The M.T.A. needs to be more willing to cooperate on these issues before we can consider accepting this contract.þþExperience has taught many of us that when union leaders start thinking that their job is to cooperate with management, the union and its members suffer. The members of Local 100 voted in a new set of officers in 2000 largely because they were tired of leaders who demonstrated their willingness to bow to the M.T.A., the mayor and the governor by giving away the hard-won benefits and rights of transit workers. They will elect new officers again, if necessary.þþAs the city's budget is cut and programs are slashed, working people throughout New York will learn that they have to struggle to hold onto what they've got. An important step will be for transit workers to refuse to surrender the protections and benefits we have earned.þþI urge my union brothers and sisters to reject the proposed agreement and send their officers back to the bargaining table as a necessary step in our continuing struggle for a just contract.þþþþNoel Acevedo is recording secretary of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union.þþþ
Source: NY Times
