A LONG DECEMBER: A NEW YORK TRANSIT STRIKE BECOMES LABOR’S MORALITY PLAY?

AN UNRULY EDITORIAL by Hotmail Dirk

The week before Christmas, New York’s transit workers took to the streets in a strike that for some observers became a watershed moment in modern labor history. The cause derived from the same issues unionized and non-unionized workers face across the nation: eroding health benefits and retirement pensions. Though the issues were nothing new, the transit worker strike made health care and pensions the central topic of conversation the past few weeks. It was also the first time in many years that a group of united workers risked going to jail and heavy fines because they chose to strike instead of being ordered to do more and receive less.

At issue was the classic contract negotiation bait and switch. The New York Transit Authority wanted to create a two-tier system that kept employee benefit costs at 2% for current employees but charge all new hires 6%.

That’s what makes this story so compelling. These workers weren’t just fighting for benefits. They went on strike over the principles.

It was pretty obvious to this casual observer that Mayor Bloomberg and the transit authority believed personal greed would triumph in contract negotiations. They hoped a just-as-long-as-I-got-mine attitude would lead to a quick and painless contract ratification. It didn’t. Instead, they found that they couldn’t bank on their two-tiered plan’s deceptive magnanimity. The individuals in the union didn’t share upper management’s baser instincts. They operated under the simple belief that everyone, especially future employees, deserved the same level of benefits they and their predecessors fought hard to receive.

When did people start thinking that cutting benefits and pensions is a good idea? What happened to the idea of our common cause, our sense of humanity, our desire for social justice? Where was our sense of moral outrage over cutting people’s benefits and sticking it to future generations?

That night I found out I apparently was on the wrong side of the morality fence.

PBS’ News Hour covered the story and true to their format, they had a pro-union and a pro-management pundit debate the issue of the day. The pro-union guy spoke about fulfilling the social contract started under the New Deal, living up to the obligation promised to these workers when they were hired 10, 20 or 30 years ago, and as a nation something has to be done to address health care and pensions in a way that benefits the working class. Rick Berman, who spoke on behalf of the Transit Authority, essentially told America that workers have their moral priorities screwed up:

“The something that has to be done is that the union leadership in many of these cases have to become more courageous. They have to become more moral in their -- in their delivery of services. They have to become more ethical and they have to face reality.

In the private sector businesses, have found out that there is a country called China. In the public sector we're going to have to find out that the public, who the unions are really striking against, they're not striking against the city, they're striking against the citizens, they're going to have to find out that if the citizens don't want to pay for something, than they just can't demand it.” (read the transcript here: )

My first reaction was to find out where Berman’s mother lived so I could slap her for raising a jackass, but I figured that wasn’t the most ethical choice I could make. How Berman could equate the morality of driving a bus with businesses discovering the human rights lovin’ China I will never understand. Threatening to take garment manufacturing overseas is one thing —and about a hundred years too late for those looking to save garment manufacturing jobs — but it’s kind of disingenuous to, you know, tell the subway guy on the Lower East Side “Sorry, but on Monday you’re being transferred to Bejing.”

Sure folks like Tom DeLay, Kathi Lee Gifford and the Walton family discovered the joys of Southeast labor laws decades ago. But there are other companies — the ones these pro-market, private sector pundits always fail to cite — that do believe in the general welfare of their employees. How come right-wing pro-marketers like Thomas Sowell never mention Starbucks, for example? Work 20 hours a week at a Starbucks (and its not like they’re hard to find) and you’ll earn stock options, a company matching 401k, and health insurance. Starbucks managers earn more than the average California teacher, by the way.

I don’t know if there is a Starbucks in China, but something tells me it would be more fun to be a barista in Bejing than a Nike cobbler in Najing.

The employee unions and management of the ESUHSD are currently debating the very issues behind the transit worker’s strike. District management feels they have been too generous with employee contracts and they want the union to accept a benefits cap, among other concessions. The primary voice calling for devaluing East Side’s compensation package is Craig Mann, the most infamous traveler on the moral high road. He hasn’t used the word “moral” yet, but he did imply that the employee unions had an obligation to take benefits cuts in tough economic times.

ESUHSD isn’t the only district in California failing to adhere to the vox populi concerning pensions and benefits. Nor are the representatives of the New York Transit Authority the only management folks who will keep their full benefits and cry immorality when unions demand a bit of human dignity.

Some folks, like Rick Bermen, have no understanding about the moral obligation to fulfill the social contract. They truly believe workers do not have a right to benefits and pensions. The New York transit employees demonstrated to everyone that fighting for benefits and pensions, especially when they aren’t directly your own, is the right course of action. Standing up for a principle? That, Mr. Bermen, is the definition of courage.