Soon after the end of the Transit Workers Union’s illegal 60-hour walkout in December 2005, Local 100 President Roger Toussaint boasted that his members had made good on a “credible threat” to strike. Later today, a state judge in Brooklyn will decide if they can get away with it.

Like all public-employee unions in New York and most other states, Local 100 depends on the involuntary collection of member dues via automatic payroll deductions by an employer – in this case, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The dues checkoff was among the invaluable privileges extended to public-sector unions 40 years ago by the state Taylor Law. It was only fair, the law’s framers explained: After all, these unions would not be allowed to strike.

Following the letter of the Taylor Law, state Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones ruled in April 2006 that Local 100’s dues-checkoff privilege should be suspended until the union submits “an affirmation that it no longer asserts the right to strike against any government.” The suspension didn’t begin until June – and now the union is crying for relief before another Supreme Court judge, Bruce Balter.

More than half the union’s 33,000 members have failed to voluntarily pay all they owe out of a measly $50 a month in dues (about two hours’ pay, on average) to help finance what Toussaint has called their continuing “class struggle” against the “Power Elite.”

To satisfy Judge Jones’ original stipulation, Toussaint submitted an affidavit acknowledging only that the Taylor Law doesn’t recognize a right to strike. As Mayor Bloomberg has pointed out, this falls short of what’s really required – namely, a formal declaration from Local 100 renouncing the right to strike and promising not to strike in the future.

Local 100’s recalcitrance is no surprise, given the union’s long history of militancy. What is surprising is the willingness of the MTA – ultimately controlled by appointees of Gov. Spitzer – to let the union off the hook.

Citing its fear that continued suspension of dues checkoff could interfere with “harmonious and cooperative relationships” in the workplace, the MTA suggested the privilege be restored “conditionally . . . subject to immediate revocation in the event of a strike or a strike threat.”

That position is a lot less tough than it sounds. In fact, it’s a virtual replay of the state’s ineffective response to the TWU’s 1980 strike. An 18-month forfeiture of the union’s dues checkoff ultimately was reduced to just four months – supposedly to be reinstated if the union struck or threatened to strike. But the union paid absolutely no penalty for threatening to strike in 1999 and 2002 – despite (as the city noted in a court brief) the costly preparations this forced on city taxpayers.

The union has paid a $2.5 million fine to the city for the December 2005 strike – but that works out to less than $76 per transit worker, or little more than a rounding error in the context of Bloomberg’s $59 billion budget.

And it looks like Local 100 could have afforded more. As of Dec. 31, according to an annual report filed with the U.S. Labor Department, the union had $39.8 million in net assets – including more than $24 million banked in an investment account after the $50 million sale of its West End Avenue headquarters.

In the year after the strike, Local 100 reported spending $420,000 on lobbying and political activity; $2 million on outside law firms; $69,600 for a “restructuring” consultant, and $108,000 on cell-phone bills for its staff – which mushroomed to 157 employees from an average of 117 over the previous three years.

Yet Toussaint claims the union now is so strapped, it can’t keep up with its members’ workplace grievances.

The logic of his position is dizzying: We broke the law by striking, and we’re being penalized because we won’t promise not to break the law again – but the public transit system should nonetheless resume collecting the dues our members aren’t willing to voluntarily pay us for the services we provide to them. Otherwise, “labor relations will be jeopardized.”

Meanwhile, Local 100’s Web site still features Toussaint’s defiant December 2005 speech calling the strike “our proudest hour.”

The aftermath of the latest transit strike has demonstrated, for the umpteenth time since 1967, that the Taylor Law’s penalties are only as strong as the elected officials who ultimately must stand behind them. Bloomberg has stood firm against restoration of the dues checkoff – but Spitzer has allowed the MTA to cave.

If Judge Balter sides with the union and the MTA, New Yorkers who can afford it might be wise to plan now on a long vacation in January 2009 – when the next transit contract is set to expire.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

NY officials covered up more than just nursing-home deaths

Gov. Cuomo’s coverup of nursing-home deaths revealed the stunning lengths to which he and his staff go to keep damning information from the public. But few New Yorkers may realize that such behavior is actually standard operating procedure throughout mu Read More

The Fear Behind City Union’s Strike Threat

Polling this month showed that two-thirds of the nation’s teachers would prefer to stay out of the classroom this fall, and teachers unions across America are poised to keep schools from reopening. The unions say the safety of their members is their top concern, yet, truth is, their bottom lines are just as critical. That’s because the pandemic represents their biggest financial threat since teachers won the right to stop paying them. Read More

New York’s Subsidy for Striking Unions

Unemployment insurance programs are meant to help people who become jobless through no fault of their own. Nearly every state has disallowed benefits to employees who are on strike. But New York’s state Senate recently voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off. Read More

Blame unions for New York’s pricey giveaway to Amazon

The state-city deal to bring one of Amazon’s two new headquarters to Long Island City might at least have provided New York City with another big benefit—a much-needed model of advanced, efficient building practices. After all, Amazon isn’t just a big corporation: It’s widely admired as a global leader in technological innovation. Instead, it appears the deal will ensure that Amazon is saddled with the same arcane and outmoded construction-union work rules and compensation levels that have saddled New York City with the nation’s highest urban construction costs. Read More

Cuomo neglects New York’s highways

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s effort to campaign for re-election as a master builder of new infrastructure has been undermined by headlines about New York City’s crumbling subway system. Meanwhile, much less public and political attention is being paid to his management of another major transportation asset: the New York state highway system. Read More

Cuomo’s doomed pro-union tricks

This week’s US Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME was not unexpected — and neither was the agitated, high-volume reaction from Gov. Cuomo and the public-sector union bosses who are his strongest political allies. Read More

After Janus, what now? What the Supreme Court’s major labor decision means for New York

What does the Janus ruling mean for the fiscal future of the Empire State, home of the country’s most unionized public sector? It depends, as always, on our elected officials. Read More

Governor’s Next Giveaway to NY’s Public Unions?

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently signed a bill making it harder for government workers to escape labor unions, he said it was just “the first step of the resistance.” Translation: It wasn’t the last favor Cuomo hopes to do for New York’s powerful public-sector unions in anticipation of the coming US Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which could void state laws compelling government workers to pay dues-like agency fees to unions they choose not to join. Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100

General Inquiries: Info@EmpireCenter.org

Press Inquiries: Press@EmpireCenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.

Empire Center Logo Enjoying our work? Sign up for email alerts on our latest news and research.
Together, we can make New York a better place to live and work!