NYCivic - No High Noon Here

    In the labor agreement, the TWU won, handsomely. In 1999, when times were good, they got a 4% raise. In 2002, a time of fiscal disaster, they got a 3% raise. The TWU’s lawyer boasted to the Times: "We gave up very little in the way of productivity concessions".

    The MTA lost. It was embarrassing. The agency took a hard line in the media and at the table: givebacks on pensions and health benefits, no raise in year 1, and raises based only on productivity in years 2 and 3. However, the MTA position melted in bargaining when they got their orders. The union stopped the clock in part because they needed a day to mop up what was left of the resistance.

    It was Governor Pataki who called the shots. Despite his public posture of being above the fray, he was heavily involved, which is not that bad in itself, since ten of the fourteen MTA board members are his appointees. (The Mayor has four.)

    The bottom line is that, in the game of chicken we described last week, it was the Governor and possibly the Mayor who were unwilling to take a strike. In this decision, they may not have been wrong, because the costs to the city and state of the disruption outweighed what the MTA had to pay to buy peace in our time. (3 years).

    The city's "permanent government" supported the agreement. A strike would have hurt business, and the city's reputation, which has already been weakened by the fiscal crisis and by fear of terrorism.

    The fare will go up, probably to $2, and the MTA will blame the union, although, in fact, it was their own inability to resist which aggravated the problem.

    The Taylor law is a joke when dealing with unions that can disrupt public order. It is, however, quite effective with the weak, as many weapons are. In labor relations, as in war, force or the convincing threat of force prevails. Laws are pieces of paper, helpful but not dispositive when there is conflict.

    Now the Mayor will have to deal with municipal unions whose contracts expire this year. To gain fiscal control, he must be willing to defy threats, and enforce existing laws which prohibit strikes by public employees. He threatens layoffs if he cannot get givebacks. But unions really prefer layoffs, the victims are off the payroll and out of the union.

    This will be a lonely struggle for our Mayor; union leaders stick together when it comes to seeking raises and resisting productivity efforts. The barons of business and the cliques of wannabes generally prefer the path of least resistance. The Democratic politicos ostentatiously support their contributors from labor. The civics are silent, as usual.

    In some cases, it is wiser to hand over your new jacket to the neighborhood bully than to be beaten, stabbed or shot over it. We know there are other bullies around who may come back for the rest of your clothing. On the other hand, you live to fight another day.

    Conclusion: the law doesn't mean that much on the streets, or in the subways, unless you have a sheriff who is willing to enforce it, and a public that will stand by the sheriff.