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.