New York City's bus and subway workers have sent shock waves through the labor movement and beyond as they demand that their employer and their union--Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100--give them a fair contract...

New York City's bus and subway workers have sent shock waves through the labor movement and beyond as they demand that their employer and their union--Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100--give them a fair contract.

First, they walked off the job December 20, shutting down New York's vital transit system for three days. Then, exactly one month later, they voted by a narrow seven-vote margin (11,234 to 11,227) to reject the proposed contract settlement.

New York City's bus and subway workers have sent shock waves through the labor movement and beyond as they demand that their employer and their union--Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100--give them a fair contract...

New York City's bus and subway workers have sent shock waves through the labor movement and beyond as they demand that their employer and their union--Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100--give them a fair contract.

First, they walked off the job December 20, shutting down New York's vital transit system for three days. Then, exactly one month later, they voted by a narrow seven-vote margin (11,234 to 11,227) to reject the proposed contract settlement.

Local 100's strike rocked the city's labor movement. Finally, a union was standing up to demands for givebacks and restructuring. And they were doing it in dramatic fashion. New York's buses and subways were stopped cold at the height of the holiday shopping season.

NO GIVEBACKS

The strike was called in response to the MTA's (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) demand that future workers pay more for their pensions. But on the picket lines strikers were taking a stand against years of petty harassment and abuse from the MTA--while also demanding that there be no givebacks in the contract.

The strike drew clear lines in the city. On one side, working people showed strong support for the strike. A poll taken on the second day showed that 54 percent of the city's residents supported the union's position.

Many people stopped at picket lines to say that, although they didn't like having to walk, they hoped the strikers held firm and got a good contract. Some gave strikers money to buy coffee. Others asked to have their pictures taken with pickets. Drivers honked their horns in solidarity as they drove by.

LOCAL UNDER ATTACK

On the other side, Local 100, its officers, and the rank and file became the target of a blistering anti-union campaign. The media, the MTA, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Governor George Pataki demonized the union's leaders and portrayed the strikers as 'thugs' and 'selfish' for standing up for themselves and the workers who would follow.

Although the union and its members already faced fines for violating the Taylor Law (it is illegal for public employees to strike in New York), the MTA went to court to seek even higher fines and the possible arrest of the union's top officers. Under the Taylor Law, Local 100 was fined $1 million for each day on strike, strikers were fined two days pay for every day on strike, and the union may lose its right to dues check-off.

Clearly, the mayor and governor were prepared to escalate the fight. Unfortunately, Local 100 and the rest of the labor movement were not.

The TWU International refused to sanction the strike and issued a statement urging members to 'cease strike activity.' The leaders of the city's other unions, who had vowed their support at pre-strike rallies, did not organize any demonstrations--or even bring their members out to the picket lines.

When strikers called for pickets to be sent to the commuter railroads (at least one union leader at a major commuter railroad said his members would honor the lines), Local 100's leadership didn't act. On the third day of the strike, despite his pledge that the union would not return to work without a contract, Local 100 President Roger Toussaint recommended to the executive board that the strike be ended so that talks would resume.

Transit workers returned to work with a mixture of pride, relief, and concern that they might now face givebacks in the contract--givebacks that could have been prevented if the union had been better organized and prepared to conduct its strike.

GOOD STRIKE, BAD CONTRACT

The contract presented to the membership five days after the strike ended contained some gains, but it also contained significant givebacks. Wage increases were the same as those offered by the MTA before the strike began. They fell short of expected increases in the cost of living.

Before the strike, President Toussaint had taken the position that he would accept neither changes to the pension plan nor workers paying for medical benefits. Afterwards, Touissant recommended a deal that, for the first time, required all members to pay a minimum of 1.5 percent of their wages for medical insurance (the percentage rate would rise over the life of the contract).

Combined with the loss of pay for striking, this premium more than offset the raise won in the first year. And, after transit workers finally used the leverage that the contract expiration during the holiday shopping season gave them, Toussaint agreed to push the expiration back a month to mid-January.

The proposed contract was endorsed overwhelmingly by Local 100's executive board.

A key selling point of the agreement was that about half the members would get a refund of excess money they had paid into the pension fund in the late 1990s. When Governor Pataki's office announced his intention to veto the legislation needed for the refund to go through, the union made it known that it had a side agreement requiring the MTA to pay bonuses to the workers if Pataki vetoed the bill.

VOTE NO COALITION

Opponents of the contract quickly formed a "Vote No Coalition" to urge the contract's rejection. At a contract information meeting in Brooklyn, fights nearly broke out between union staffers and critics of the contract. At a similar meeting in the Bronx, President Toussaint was repeatedly interrupted by chants of "Vote No! Vote No!" coming from members who were unconvinced by his sales pitch.

To counter the growing opposition to the contract, the union leadership sent two mailings to every member, hired phone bankers, and sent repeated emails. Most of the press in the city, which had denounced the strike, echoed Toussaint's claim that the contract was a big win for the union. Up until the day before the votes were counted, Toussaint was predicting that the contract would be overwhelmingly approved.

Part of Toussaint's pitch was that if you supported the strike, you should support the contract. The implication was that if you opposed the contract, you rejected the necessity and legitimacy of the strike.

The Vote No Coalition countered that while striking was the right thing to do, the contract was not worthy of the strikers' efforts. They argued that local leadership had undermined the legitimacy of the strike by calling a giveback contract a "victory" when the union had taken the position of "No Givebacks" and the members had struck to prevent them.

Indeed, after the contract details were released, many members who were initially proud of themselves and their co-workers for saying "no" to the MTA and walking off the job began wondering what the point of the strike was. By striking and then rejecting an unsatisfactory contract, Local 100 members have made it clear that when they say "No Givebacks," they mean "No Givebacks."

BACK TO THE TABLE

President Toussaint has said that he will return to the bargaining table. Given how out of touch with the members the executive board has shown itself to be, opponents of the contract will be pushing for greater control by the membership over the bargaining process. And they will continue organizing among their co-workers to make sure that the next proposed agreement is worthy of the determination and combativeness transit workers have shown this winter.

Steve Downs is a NYC subway train operator. He is a member of Transit Workers for a Just Contract

.