For me, the answer is easy. I have a side, not only when my union bargains, but when any union bargains. And that side is the union and the working people it represents. We never get what we should; we try to come as close as possible.

The moment someone believes it is worth discussing, either that person can be convinced that there are two sides and that their interests lie on our side, or they cannot.

I sense that you dislike unions (correct me if I am mistaken). If that is the case, then there might be discussion about unions in general, but without agreement there, discussion of contract particulars would be pointless. It would be as if we speak mutually incomprehensible languages.

jonathan

Because arbitrators almost always follow the pattern set by the the city who sets it by picking the weakest union who is desperate for a piddling raise.

read my comments on #1

2. How do you know that the contract offered to the TWU was unfair?

Ken

Like persam, I wonder what would have happened if ALL of the unions stood together as a show of solidarity and supported the TWU..not just in terms of physical support, but financial, etc.

And, kudos to Randi for taking the stance she did during the transit strike!

As it stands, the TWU is now reduced to just another union that works without a contract and will eventually get screwed in arbitration.

Naturally, along with the entire Edwize writing staff, they strongly supported our most recent contract.

Agreed. But we also need to recognize that this is a start. I am proud that our president is sounding more militant. It will inspire and help us build more of the same, and just as much, it probably reflects feelings of militancy that are already growing within our ranks.

“Since our corporations have globalized, our unions must do the same and raise the standard of living everywhere, leaving no place on the planet to exploit.”

Way cool. I’ll march in your parade. Now, if we could get a few million to join us…

Wild tangent: Leo, I really like your title A few months ago I finally bought a cd player, and now have a total of 3 cds – but one is Pete Seeger’s June ’63 Carnegie Hall concert, where, among other things, he introduces a northern audience to “I ain’t afraid of your jail….” and a dance called the “wobble” that apparently went with it.

Jonathan

On the local level, what happens to one union happens to all. If there really were only 500 people marching with Toussaint, we need to do better.

“How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” Martin Luther King Jr. Birmingham 1963

Presently, strikes, although unlawful, have been the only weapon unions have had to force employers to recognize and deal with their labor unions. In fact, the AFT has documented the fact that trade unionists have been persecuted and jailed for exercising their democratic rights. There are incalculable cases where “labor organizations and democracy activists are under siege,” globally.

In New York State trade unionists have had to wrestle with the Taylor Law from its inception. The law was put into effect in 1967, during the Rockefeller Administration. This was in response to the Transit Strike of 1966. Section 210 of the Taylor Law states that the municipal workers are not allowed to strike. Furthermore, it requires binding Public Employment Relations Board arbitration in the event of an impasse in negotiations. There is even a fine for striking. Plus many trade unionists, like Roger Toussaint, TWU President, have gone to jail. Surely, this “law degrades the human personality.”

The Taylor Law seems to fit the mode of an unfair law because it to penalizes labor and not management. Management seems unscathed as it moves toward the negotiation table at a snails pace. Hence, the impetus for management to negotiate contracts in a timely manner or negotiate in good faith is absent. There seems to be no penalty for management. Yet, the penalties for the UFT strikes of 1967, 1968 and 1975 are now a part of our Labor Union History.

Even the most recent attempts to negotiate with the city, took over two and a half years. Yes, two and a half years before the city even approached the bargaining table in good faith. Yet, there were no threats or reprisals on tap for management. Thus, it is obvious that changes to the Taylor Law are needed so that one can address the current inequity unions face at the bargaining table.

As we prepare, for a new set of negotiations to begin, we know that our past efforts to reform the Taylor Law have never proven successful. Even after our COPE dollars were used to underwrite lobbying efforts aimed at advocating for a change in this unfair law. However, we must perservere. We have done it before.

As indicated by Abe Levine,former UFT Vice President, “During my 50 years on the Executive Board, our Union has grown tremendoulsy in membership and influence. We have weathered many crises and have been successful in our efforts.”

And surely any union that works to uplift the “human personality” is a just union. We must press on!

Phyllis C. Murray
UFT Chapter Leader
District 8 Region 2