It was recently announced that the MTA and the representatives from the LIRR union labor coalition would resume contract negotiation talks sometime today in an effort to agree upon a contract before the end of the current, and final, cooling-off period. Beginning at 12:01am Sunday morning, almost 5,500 LIRR workers represented by eight different unions could legally strike—and they have said that they certainly intend on doing so, should the two sides still be in disagreement come “zero hour.”
However, while one might be glad that the two sides are coming back to the table once more, I can’t help but wonder if the two sides meeting again will actually result in anything meaningful. The more recent bouts of negotiations have been growing shorter and shorter with an apparent “gulf” existing between the two sides.
As the negotiations have progressed, it is becoming increasingly clear that one side isn’t really interested in negotiating. At the very beginning of this whole process, the MTA was holding firm to the importance of a net-zero contract, where any wage increase would have to be balanced one-for-one with givebacks. Since then, the MTA has moved on their position three different times, there most recent offer to the unions consisted of 17% wage increases over seven years with not all that much in terms of givebacks—far from net-zero.
However, on the other side of the table, the unions have grabbed onto the Presidential Emergency Board’s decision, and have been clutching onto it ever so tightly. Time and time again the unions have just submitted the same exact offer recommended by the PEB. To date, the unions have come down just 0.15%, fifteen one-hundredths of a percent, off their original offer.
The whole point of negotiating is compromise—meeting someplace in the middle. Taking the same deal you proposed last time, changing the font size, and then calling it a “counter offer” isn’t really negotiating.
Earlier this week, MTA Spokesman Adam Lisberg said that “this is not a labor negotiation, it’s a hostage negotiation.” MTA Chairman and CEO Tom Prendergast said that throughout the whole negotiation process, which is supposed to involve some give and take, “we’ve done giving, they’ve done taking.”
It’s clear at this point which side is not interested in negotiating in good faith. While it’s nice to see the two sides back at it again, one can’t help but wonder that if MTA officials are taking time out of what must understandably be quite a hectic week leading up to a potential strike just to see the unions present the same old offer, just in Comic Sans MS font this time, their time might be better spent elsewhere.
Much as I'd hate to say it, the only thing that might really get the unions to budge would be if the MTA and the public boycott LIRR until reforms and reason come into the unions. Either that or strong threats to kick out the unions and replace them with people actually willing to do the work under legitimate rules to minimize fund drainage. Either one would end up having serious repercussions for the public and especially the MTA.
ReplyDeleteUpdate 7/16/14 6:00pm:
ReplyDeleteIn an e-mail earlier today, MTA Spokesman Aaron Donovan said that New
York & Atlantic Railway freight trains would continue to run in the
event of a work stoppage, so the trash, and other goods to freight
customers, would continue to flow in the event LIRR train service is
suspended.
I have been only casually following this situation, as it has minimal effect on my life 4,000 miles away, but I have a few thoughts. I am not trying to start an argument, just present a perspective from a union-represented railroader who works in both passenger and freight service.
ReplyDeleteA 17% wage increase sounds huge at face value, but it is over a seven year period. Consider that in those same seven years, if inflation stays around the 4% it typically hovers near, you are looking at somewhere around 28% inflation during that time. Also, effective in 2010 the UTU and most major freight carriers in this country settled on an agreement which resulted in a 17% wage increase for employees in train and engine service, over a five year period. (The actual agreement, known as the "national agreement" can be found at www.utu.org. Note that different railroads ratified it at different times.) Many people would argue that passenger railroaders have more responsibility than freight railroaders, since their job requires a certain awareness and ability to manage the people they serve on top of all the train operation responsibilities.
Secondly, I have seen a lot of people who are upset that the union would ask for such a wage increase when they are not getting a similar one from their employer. To me this does not matter. How is it relevant what John Doe is getting from his accounting firm? It is a different employer and, in most cases, a completely different industry. If someone is upset that someone in another field is getting bigger wages than them, perhaps it is time for a career change, or at least employer change. If someone wants a job where they can get annual, predictable raises, I have a list as long as my arm of railroads that are hiring, no experience required.
Now, all that said, my biggest beef with the union (as a whole) is that it is run too much like a corporation. The whole idea behind a labor union is to protect employees from corporations that would otherwise probably take advantage of them. Sometimes I feel like the UTU is more interested in itself than its members, so long as they are up to date on their dues. Many railroaders pay a percentage of their paycheck as the dues, so in those cases, a wage increase automatically means more revenue for the union. Health benefits, which were once free to the employee at many railroads, have been slowly getting more expensive too, so once that is factored in, the wage increase starts to shrink. By the time the employee is done paying into retirement and disability insurance and any other union-based insurance, the raise is just about gone. It sounds nice at face value...17% sounds like they're cutting a fat hog, but in reality the raise I got when that national agreement went into effect in 2012 on my railroad was negligible. The UTU and United Healthcare got just about all of it.
All that said, the railroads have been taking advantage of people since day one and there are few railroads I would even consider working for without union representation! That said, if the railroad isn't making money, no one is really, at least for everyone that works for a for-profit railroad that is privately operated. As this post said, "It takes two to negotiate," there needs to be a mutually beneficial agreement, not a "winner takes all" agreement.
Is it possible for NY&AR crews to run limited LIRR trains? Or to get some Amtrak or MNR crews?
ReplyDeleteSo the garbage from East Hampton gets sent to Brentwood? Sadly that sounds about right.
ReplyDeleteConsidering most are not likely qualified on the passenger equipment, no. But getting crews to run trains wasn't going to be an issue. The engineer's were not included in the negotiating coalition and they would not have legally been allowed to strike, so they could have been used to run a number of trains during a work stoppage.
ReplyDeleteWhile I cannot read their minds, they were likely hesitant to do something like that because it would give people the false sense of hope that their commutes would be somewhat normal, and people wouldn't try and telecommute, etc., so the trains that did run would have been mobbed.