Union Politics Ensnarling MTA Talks (Read More…)
By TED MANN
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its largest union on Friday held contract talks for the 15th time this year, an unusually slow pace that has prompted criticism of the labor organization’s president.
The MTA has prodded John Samuelsen, the president of the Transport Workers Union Local 100, to come to the table more often, according to correspondence reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. And Mr. Samuelsen’s internal union critics have seized on the speed of negotiations as a sign that he is putting off a contract full of painful concessions until after a union election in December.
Mr. Samuelsen defended his approach, saying the union is hamstrung by the effects of an unpopular 2005 strike that gutted its finances and crippled its organizing power. A more aggressive posture—with the threat of a strike in play—wouldn’t work, he said.
“This union is simply not organizationally prepared to strike,” Mr. Samuelsen said. A strike is “off the table, not forever, but it’s off the table.”
“If it’s the case that the [union] administration has planned its contract strategy around its elections, then everybody should be angry about that,” said Joseph Campbell, Mr. Samuelsen’s leading opponent for control of Local 100, which represents more than 35,000 MTA workers.
The dispute highlights a tenuous assumption: The MTA’s budget is dependent on achieving three “net-zero years"—that is, either three years of flat pay for union workers, or concessions that would balance out the cost of raises. MTA Chairman Joseph Lhota has been careful to caution that recently announced service restorations, for instance, depend on the MTA getting its “zeros” from its labor force.
It is up to Mr. Samuelsen, his allies and critics within the TWU acknowledge, to find a way to avoid giving them. Mr. Samuelsen has rejected concessions and said his workers need raises to keep pace with the city’s cost of living. An impasse could lead to labor arbitration, where neither side is confident how it would fare.
MTA negotiators and Mr. Samuelsen have conducted only 15 “main table” negotiating sessions since the beginning of the year, including a meeting Friday at MTA offices in Manhattan.
The Journal reviewed roughly eight months’ worth of correspondence between the union and the MTA’s director of labor relations, Anita Miller, provided in response to a public records request, and heavily redacted by the MTA.
A pattern emerges in the exchanges between both camps over the spring and summer—Mr. Samuelsen expressing willingness to negotiate but frequently canceling appointments, Ms. Miller gently chiding the labor leader about the need to negotiate in earnest if the MTA and TWU are to reach a deal.
“I am concerned that we have not met in a while to continue main table negotiations,” Ms. Miller wrote on May 22, nearly a month after their previous meeting.
“As I am sure you would agree,” Ms. Miller wrote, “our best hope of reaching a negotiated settlement is to continue setting aside ample time to discuss proposals that might serve to fund desired wage increases.”
In another letter, sent one week later, Ms. Miller again prodded Mr. Samuelsen that the sides “should be meeting regularly,” then proposed three new meeting dates. The MTA withheld Mr. Samuelsen’s response in its entirety, but a follow-up makes clear that he rejected each of those dates.
Mr. Samuelsen underwent surgery in early spring, which delayed talks for about a month. At other times, he said he would be unavailable because of travel plans, including to Albany to lobby on union concerns.
The mere frequency of meetings doesn’t necessarily measure the parties’ willingness to engage with each other. Messrs. Samuelsen and Lhota say they speak frequently by phone.
Mr. Campbell said the union leader should have been in intensive contract negotiations last year, before the existing contract expired. Instead, the pace of talks has been “infrequent,” Mr. Campbell said.
Like his ally, former Local 100 President Roger Toussaint, who led the 2005 strike, Mr. Campbell said Mr. Samuelsen has been insufficiently aggressive with the MTA and should have used the last union contract’s expiration deadline, Jan. 15, to raise the pressure to strike a deal.
“Traditionally, TWU has been one of the most militant unions, and that’s why we’re respected in the city among the unions,” Mr. Campbell said. “Right now, we don’t see ourselves in that position.”
Mr. Samuelsen said he has to balance the desire of members to avoid concessions and seek raises with the lingering organizational hangover of the 2005 strike. He said they are doing better than other state unions that struck deals more quickly. “Granted, we’re 10 months without a contract, but we’re also the only union of state workers that is not shackled with tremendous concessions right now,” he said.
The union’s executive board, including some now criticizing Mr. Samuelsen, decided they wouldn’t set a strike deadline that might appear to be an empty threat, he said.
The negotiating postures of previous union leaders have led either to concessions or to the 2005 strike, which crippled the TWU’s finances, Mr. Samuelsen and his allies charge.
“Yes, this is a new course for Local 100,” Mr. Samuelsen said. “But we’ve never been in a massive economic downturn, and so shortly after a strike that devastated the fortunes of the TWU.”
Posted by Admin on 10/20 at 09:45 AM
HealthBridge Sues Union In Federal Court, Claims Extortion Under RICO Act (Read More…)
By MARA LEE
HealthBridge Management and CareOne, interconnected companies that own and run nursing homes in Connecticut and five other states, on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit that calls a union’s publicity campaign against them “a shake-down by a lawless enterprise.”
The companies say the pattern of actions by SEIU, including enlisting politicians and liberal activists in efforts to shame the company into a more generous stance toward its workers, are criminal extortion under the RICO Act, a federal law often invoked in cases of organized crime and racketeering.
“This action is not about strikes or union organizing or collective bargaining,” the suit says. “It is about a corporate campaign, endorsed and effectuated by Defendants and facilitated by the politicians they support, that is in its essence a shake-down by a lawless enterprise.”
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, identifies two Service Employees International Union District 1199 locals, one covering New Jersey, one covering Connecticut. Both companies are based in New Jersey.
The suit says that as a result of SEIU’s “baseless claims” on questionable Medicare billing, River Glen Health Care Center in Southbury is the target of an ongoing inquiry by federal prosecutors, forcing the company to spend “a substantial amount of time and money in responding.”
About 600 Service Employees International Union District 1199 members from five homes in Connecticut have been striking since July. HealthBridge runs eight homes in the state, including River Glen, which is not unionized.
Deborah Chernoff, spokeswoman for District 1199, said: “I think it’s very appropriate for the government to investigate whether Medicare funds are being properly expended. If they are, all to the well and good, if not, we’re all being cheated.”
The day the strike began, HealthBridge reported acts of sabotage in Newington, Stamford and Danbury to police. The lawsuit says, “These tactics were not the isolated acts of individual disgruntled strikers. Rather, they were coordinated actions by [District 1199] organizers.”
“It’s a charge without any basis in fact,” she said. “It’s made simply as an effort to distract from their own illegal behavior.”
The federal government is suing the companies, accusing them of breaking labor laws on collective bargaining, and have asked a federal judge in Hartford to force HealthBridge to put the strikers back to work and to restore the benefits that the company unilaterally reduced earlier this year.
The company, saying the union would not bend, ended the pension for workers and dramatically increased cost sharing for health insurance premiums at the same time it increased wages by 2.2 percent. The NLRB says that action was illegal.
This is not the first time SEIU has been sued under the anti-racketeering statute, and it settled out of court when Sodexo, a food distribution company, sued in 2011.
Fordham University law professor James Brudney said that in recent years companies have been using the RICO statutes as a way to gain the upper hand against unions they are in disputes with.
“As a general proposition the notion that hard bargaining or political pressure or appeals to agencies or courts is extortion is simply a loser – or it should be,” he said.
One consequence of that political pressure in Connecticut, the lawsuit says, is that the state withheld permission to close Wethersfield Health Care Center for six months, costing the company $6 million.
Some of these cases are dismissed the first time they come up in front of a judge, Brudney said. But when they are not dismissed, the union will usually settle out of court and back away from the negative publicity campaigns that inspired the lawsuits.
“The union can’t ignore them even if ultimately they would not succeed on the merits,” he said. “I think it’s a misuse of federal law.”
Posted by Admin on 10/10 at 08:07 PM