Preparing For A Fight

As the court case on the contract arbitration award drags on, many workers are concerned about the lack of wage increases and the substantial increase in the cost of health insurance.

Workers’ anger is growing, but there is much confusion about what can be done. From management’s point of view, we are supposed to wait and see what the court decides. As workers, there is a different view. The no-strike clause was put in the contract when management (it was Capital Transit at the time) agreed to final and binding arbitration. Under the agreement, once an arbitrator was selected, his decision was subject to judicial review only if he had been bribed or his decision was based on false information. It could not be appealed because management or the union though it was too much or too little.

Metro and the court are now saying that the ground rules have changed. From the workers’ viewpoint this voids the contract and allows us to return to the time before there was a no-strike clause in the contract.

Many of us are skeptical of this approach. We look around us and see millions out of work. Other workers have had their wages cut or their hours of work reduced. Millions of others have no health insurance or pay an outrageous amount for minimal benefits. Pensions like ours have pretty much disappeared in the private sector and are now under attack for government workers. Is it wise to fight back under these circumstances?

We have no choice but to fight back. The bosses are not satisfied with the status quo. They believe with the current economic situation coupled with a weak and incompetent union leadership they can push us back. This racist attack is trying to reverse the gains of the Civil Rights Movement.

At this point the main obstacle to a serious fight is our union leadership. When the award was issued, the leadership confused the membership by telling them there were no concessions in the award and that it favored the union. After Metro challenged the award because it did not push us back far enough, the leadership took the position that the whole award had to be implemented or none of it. They soon backed down from this, an allowed Metro to give us the bonus instead of a wage increase for 2008. At the court hearing in March the union told the judge we were not going to challenge the increases in health insurance or the elimination of retiree health insurance for new employees.

After that hearing, the leadership said the judge only wanted the arbitration panel to clarify the award. She refused to admit that the judge had ruled that the award had to be in compliance with the Wolf Bill which was passed to reduce our wages and benefits. At the August court hearing, the judge told us once more that the award had to be incompliance with the Wolf Bill and that we had not shown that. He gave the union 45 more days to explain why we should get a pay raise and keep our pension benefits and at that point he would begin to study the materials and write an opinion. He set no date to issue his opinion. In most cases you would expect an opinion in 6 to 8 weeks.

We have to pressure the leadership to prepare us for a fight. If they will not, we have to provide that leadership ourselves. We need to gain the support of other unions and the riding public for this fight. For more info email at: movingforward689@yahoo.com.

Howard Conference on Jobs 2010

The IMF estimates that there are 210 million unemployed people in the world. This is a staggering number, but it probably a gross underestimation since poorer countries keep limited statistics and many people who are underemployed are not counted.

In the United States official unemployment is approximately 15 million with another 10 million either not seeking work or underemployed. Many workers who do return to work find themselves making less money and fewer benefits in their new jobs. The recent restructuring in the auto industry is a good example of this.

The human capital which could be used to transform the world is being wasted by a global capitalist system which operates to maximize profits rather than meet the needs of people of the world. The current crisis is not caused by a lack of resources or fixed capital, but rather by the drive for profits.

A long list of reforms could be made to create jobs in the world economy. For example:

1.) Shorten the work week without a loss of pay. This was the method used in the industrial world for the first half of the 20^th century as the standard work week was reduced from 80 hours to 40 hours.

2.) Improve Social Security and Medicare so workers can actually retire at 65. Let workers become eligible for Medicare at 55, so they can reduce their workload as they get older. This is particularly true in industries that do not provide health insurance to older workers.

3.) Guarantee everyone a free college education including technical training so as to reduce youth unemployment.

4.) Rebuild the world’s infrastructure to provide clean air and water to everyone.

We could make a longer list but it is mostly wishfully thinking.

Since talking about creating jobs is always good politics, Congress has often entered the fray. After World War II, Congress passed and Truman signed a full employment law. In the 70’s, the Humphrey-Hawkins Bill was debated in Congress. The Korean War and the Vietnam War created enough demands for manpower, that these efforts were soon forgotten.

Do the capitalist desire full employment? Karl Marx made the point nearly 150 years ago, that unemployment was an essential aspect of capitalist society. The “reserve army of labor” was needed to hold down wages, provide workers when the economy expanded and to divide the working class.

At the current time, both major political parties have declared that job creation is there first priority. The Republicans claim that if business taxes are cut, new jobs will be created. There are so many loop holes in corporate tax laws, that taxes are actually voluntary for major corporations. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are trying to get other capitalists to make voluntary contributions to social programs because they believe that some capitalists drive for profits have gone so far as to destabilize the system. The Democrats are so afraid of being called “socialists” that they do not want to launch any large scale government jobs programs. Paul Krugman has been regularly attacking the current administration for not being bold enough.

The politicians are putting forth ideas which they know will not work. They try to create enough confusion, so that workers will not identify capitalism as the root of the problem and they can get re-elected.

The role of intellectuals at a conference like this is to cut through the fog and identify the problem as the capitalist system. It is not to come up with a better laundry list. As long as the politicians, the pundits, and the intellectuals who have joined as allies of the capitalist set the agenda of society, workers will continue to suffer under the heel of racist unemployment.

What is to be done? I am quoting Lenin on that one.

I have been active in the labor movement for over 40 years. I have held many positions in the union movement, from shop steward to the president of a 10,000 member local. I have negotiated contracts, led strikes, been fired for union activity, and held in contempt of court and fined. Throughout the years one thing has become clear, you can make some reforms, but you cannot reform the system.

The only solution is to destroy capitalism with communist revolution. To do this means building a revolutionary communist party of millions of workers, soldiers, students and intellectuals who have a vision of communism and are willing to fight for it. Too much time is spent devising plans for reforming capitalism and not enough working on plans for a communist vision of society.

Many of us have become cynical because of past failures. The workers’ movement of the last 150 years has much to teach us. A new communist movement must be built that wins millions of workers to abolishing the wage system, ending racism and sexism, and eliminating privilege. This is not an easy task but it can be done.

We are often misled by politicians who promise to change capitalism. Maybe they are sincere when they start but they soon learn who their real masters are. Obama is the latest in a long line of capitalist politicians leading us down a road that goes nowhere.

The politicians are organized into two main political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Their rhetoric is different and they have minor tactical differences on policy, but they are all dedicated to the preservation of capitalism.

Standing in opposition to the capitalist’s parties is the revolutionary communist Progressive Labor Party. PLP organizes class struggle on the job, in the military, in the schools and in the community. Through these struggles and others it wages the ideological struggle to familiarize people with the vision of communism and recruit them to the Party.

PLP is not an electoral party because the capitalist are determined to hold onto power by any means necessary. Elections do not determine which class holds power in society, only revolution does that.

PLP does not have a crystal ball that tells us the future. But the trends in the world today indicate that the rivalry between the imperialist powers will continue to grow, that attacks on unions will not cease, that racism and anti-immigrant sentiment will intensify, and environmental conditions will continue to deteriorate. The capitalist profit system will not solve these problems. Only the building the PLP and communist revolution will let mankind move forward.

Tomorrow thousands of workers will march in Washington for jobs and economic justice. Unfortunately the leadership of the march is attempting to convince the participants to adopt an electoral strategy. We know this is a dead end. Our party will be there to win workers to join the movement for communist revolution. Some of us will be there with our unions to spread this idea; others will join the PLP contingent which will assemble at 22^nd and Constitution Avenue NW at 11:00 am for the same purpose. I am inviting all of you to join in the effort to build the revolutionary movement. I am sure all of you know someone in the party. Get together with them, hash out your differences, and join us.

History of the No Strike Clause at Metro

In 1955 the union gave up the right to strike to resolve contract disputes in favor of binding arbitration. When the Metro Compact was signed in the 1960’s, it was agreed to continue this method of dispute resolution for future contract disputes between WMATA and Local 689. This was actually required to get federal money for the takeover of the private bus companies and the building of the subway.

In the early years of Metro, contract negotiations were difficult and arbitration had to be used in 1976, 1978, and 1980 to get new contracts. Although Metro was unhappy with the process, strikes in 1974 and 1978, convinced them to honor the awards. None of these awards were particularly good for the union, but Metro complained because they gave us a few crumbs.

After 1980, the union and management were able to work out negotiated settlements. In 1995, Congress passed legislation at the instigation of Frank Wolfe, the congressman from Northern Virginia, to change the ground rules for arbitration. The union had no say in this change. President Clinton signed the bill into law. The changes were designed to reduce the wages and benefits of Local 689 members. It introduced the standard of affordability to the local governments into the determination of Metro workers’ wages and benefits.

This law of course made negotiations with Metro more difficult. It took 14 months to negotiate the 1998 agreement. It was only by raiding the pension fund and reducing the wages and benefits of new employees, that a settlement was reached.

A new leadership was elected to deal with the 2001 contract negotiations. The real estate market was booming at the time and the local governments were flush with cash. A settlement was reached which gave us a gain in real wages and a significant improvement in our pensions. Its weakness was that it did not reverse any of the concessions effecting new employees from the previous agreement.

The 2004 contract negotiations proved extremely difficult. The Metrorail system was beginning to show its age, the local governments were refusing to contribute more to Metro, and the pension fund was in need of substantial contributions from Metro to meet future pensions. Fortunately strikes in Philadelphia and New York City set a standard for wage increases and health insurance benefits. Aggressive negotiations by the union, a growing militancy by the membership and a new general manager, resulted in a settlement which addressed all the major issues on the table and reversed some of the concessions made in the 1998 agreement.

This set the stage for the current round of negotiations. Metro began the negotiations with the intent of getting major concessions from the union or going to arbitration. The union leadership instead of telling Metro if you do not start negotiating in good faith we are prepared to shut this place down, they agreed to go to arbitration.

The union put on a strong case. The award favored Metro by freezing our wages for one year, shifting some of the cost of health insurance to the members, and eliminating retiree health insurance for new employees. Metro was not satisfied with these concessions. They went to court to have the award overturned claiming they could not afford it.

We are now awaiting the judge’s ruling. Listening to the judge’s remarks in court, it appears he is going to rule in Metro’s favor. If this happens what will we do?

We need a plan. This is not only a fight for a pay raise, but a fight for the nature of this job for many years to come.