Currently Reading Mao Tsetung's immortal contributions By Bob Avakian see related

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS and RAY SÁNCHEZ
STAFF WRITER

January 21, 2006

Just last month, many of the city's 33,000 transit workers hailed union president Roger Toussaint for his bold leadership in calling for a three-day strike. On Saturday, Toussaint was nobody's hero after his rank-and-file turned on him by turning down a new contract.

"This was basically a vote of no confidence for Roger Toussaint," said David Gregory, a professor of labor law at St. John's University. "It undermines his credibility back at the bargaining table."

That's where both sides could return _ again _ after Toussaint announced Friday that the Transport Workers Union Local 100 had rejected the three-year deal worked out last month between the workers and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The margin of defeat was just seven votes out of more than 22,000 cast.

It's unclear when or if new talks will start. "We're waiting on the MTA," said Jesse Derris, a union spokesman. The MTA, which oversees the city's mass transit system, said on Friday it would prefer to seek binding arbitration rather than return to the table. The union is opposed to arbitration.

"We are disappointed to report that the members of our union have voted not to ratify the agreement that we reached with the MTA," Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint told reporters.

Toussaint, looking somber and tired during a Manhattan news conference, blasted Gov. George Pataki, union dissidents and MTA negotiators for the pact's rejection but said union officials were willing to return to the bargaining table.

The vote, which concluded exactly one month after transit workers walked off the job, was a stunning defeat for Toussaint and union leaders, who had lobbied heavily for ratification.

It raised the possibility of another walkout by the union's 34,000 bus and subway workers, who nearly shut down the city during the holiday season with their three-day job action, the first transit strike in 25 years. However, union dissidents said they hope to avoid that outcome.

"We want to resolve this thing," said Ainsley Stewart, a member of the union's executive board. "We want a fair contract . . . We don't want to pay for our health benefits."

For the first time, the union collected ballots by phone and the Internet, with a total of 22,461 votes cast -- or two-thirds of the membership. In the end, 11,227 members voted in favor of the new contract, while 11,234 voted against it. Voting ended at noon Friday.

The vote count means that transit workers, who historically have refused to work without a contract, will continue to work without a pact. But the latest development in the protracted labor dispute was not expected to immediately affect bus and subway service.

Toussaint said the union was willing "to go back to the drawing board" with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, meaning that the two sides could resume bargaining in the coming days.

In a letter to the union, released Friday night, MTA labor relations director Gary Dellaverson said the authority, declaring an impasse in the talks, will ask the state to appoint an arbitration panel early next week. But Dellaverson also said he was available to meet.

The union has opposed arbitration on grounds that certain contract gains would automatically come off the table.

MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow said management's final offer "addressed the economic needs of our workers while recognizing the significant financial difficulties facing the MTA and its customers."

"The MTA is amenable to meeting with the union in the coming days," Kalikow said.

Toussaint, as he has repeatedly done in recent weeks, Friday blamed Pataki, dissident union leaders and the MTA for souring the rank and file on the new contract. He said union members were worried that Pataki would veto $110 million in refunds of pension contributions for about 20,000 workers.

"The net effect was that members came to doubt that the key benefits of the deal were forthcoming," he said.

A statement from Pataki's office said, "We would encourage the MTA and the TWU to expeditiously resolve their differences and reach final settlement of the contract."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the contract's rejection "disappointing news to all New Yorkers."

"I encourage both the TWU and the MTA to work together on a amicable resolution to their contract dispute," he said.

The deal that was rejected Friday was nearly identical to a contract proposed by state mediators who helped end the strike. The proposed 37-month contract called for annual raises of 3 percent, 4 percent and 3.5 percent. But it also would have required transit workers for the first time to contribute 1.5 percent of the wages toward health insurance -- a provision that angered many workers interviewed in recent days.

Joshua Freeman, a labor historian familiar the TWU Local 100, said that in 1992 union members rejected a contract, forcing the issue back to the negotiating table. After minor adjustments, the contract was ratified.

"This is more complicated, particularly because of the way the governor reacted to the contract," Freeman said. "That's a big factor. It may influence what the MTA can do back at the bargaining table."

Pataki criticized the deal, saying it essentially rewarded workers for staging an illegal strike.

Dissidents within the union said they are hopeful a new deal could be reached without another strike.

"What they were offering was a wage package that did not keep up with inflation," said Marty Goodman, another executive board member. "We all have to feed our families and pay our rent."

Staff writer Dan Janison contributed to this story.

Currently Listening The Who: The Ultimate Collection By The Who see related

- Won't Get Fooled Again

Defiant New York Transit Workers Strike

Revolution #029, January 8, 2006, posted at revcom.us

Over 33,000 New York City transit workers walked out in a defiant strike in December. A strike like this would be important and daring at any time. But in this moment and in that place, it had the feel of a manifesto against the whole direction of these times.

To demand pensions and health care, when everyone else is told to live without... To defy the law that forbids strikes by government workers... To disrupt business as usual in this time of mania for security. How out of step! How fresh!

New York Governor Pataki declared the strike illegal. Mayor Bloomberg called the strikers "thuggish" in a blatant appeal to racism that was immediately protested. And imagine this shameless billionaire mayor daring to denounce the workers for being "greedy"! And (natural for these times) the strikers were labeled "terrorist" in some mainstream press articles. A court imposed a $1 million a day fine against the union local. And fines against each striker reached over $1,000. Court action was started to jail union leaders.

And, in the face of all that, the workers struck. These heavily African American and foreign-born workers said "No!" in a way you couldnt miss. They stopped the city busses and subways that move millions in and out of work.

Automation has wiped out thousands of job on the busses and subways. The MTA is on a rampage of outrageous harassment, dishing out a phenomenal 15,000 disciplinary actions just in the last year. Daily News columnist Juan Gonzales described cases where workers taking chemotherapy to fight cancer were accused of "sick leave abuse."

A track worker told our correspondent: "We keep giving back and giving back, and they keep taking back, but we said to our ourselves, not this time."

Out in the streets, in the ghettos and barrios, the workers of Transport Workers Union Local 100 were seen as heroes by many. Polls showed that Black people overwhelmingly supported the strikers, while a majority of all nationalities "disapproved" of the governors handling of the contract negotiations. The letters to the editor of the New York Times, with its mainly middle-class and upper-middle-class readership, mostly supported the strike, despite the hostile editorials of the Times. Given the mainstream press attacks on the strikers, and the inconvenience from the bus and subway stoppage, there was more than a little narrowness in how some people responded--but that makes the mass support all the more remarkable.

The issues at the center of this strike were undeniably just and important: The workers wanted guaranteed pensions and medical benefits, not just for themselves but for the workers who followed them. The MTA was promoting a sinister "two tier" system--the kind that has swept through U.S. industry--where todays workers get cut, but future hirees get slashed much deeper. Such schemes guarantee a bitterly divided and weakened workforce.

The political power structure and mainstream media considered attacks on pensions and benefits to be normal and even visionary. After all, it is said, if workers here dont accept less, "how will the U.S. successfully compete in this globalized world economy?" This is a sign of the downsized future that capitalists are planning as they respond to the dynamics and changes of their own capitalist system.

The transit workers decided to make the two-tier plans for cutting pensions into a battle line. As one striker told Revolution: "I will not sell out the next generation."

Their stand resonated widely. One young nursing student spoke for many people:"How did pensions become a luxury? Why shouldnt people be able to take this for granted? Whats so wrong with that?"

At a post office waiting line, one woman complained out loud that the strike was disrupting her life, saying, "It didnt make any sense. They arent even fighting about their own pensions, for themselves, but for future generations." Someone shot back, "Whats wrong with that?!"

One striker told Revolution: "They talk about 'illegal,' about our strike. But when Rosa Parks did something, it was illegal. When King did it and Malcolm X did it, it was illegal. And look where they are now; theyre heroes. Slavery was legal, but people fought for something in those days."

After three days, the strike ended. MTA negotiators said the "two tier" demand would be "taken off the table." The union officials called off the strike--even though the MTA has not abandoned its demands for major concessions and the state has not withdrawn its outrageous fines.

Conservative columnists and think-tanks still complained that all this had ended in a way "extremely favorable" for the strikers, and that this would encourage more resistance. And the fact that these forces are furious over anything that isnt a cold crushing of the workers is a sign of where they are determined to take things in this society.

This is a good moment for millions of working people in New York City--in the much-demonized "Babylon by the Hudson"--to be stirred against the power structure, inspired by organized law-breaking, and openly debating where the future is going.

Currently Reading Being And Nothingness By Jean-Paul Sartre see related

Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has just announced a "breakthrough" on our Health Benefit Trust. He hopes to use the December 1 "General Membership Assembly" to sell his give-back scheme. The sellout is spelled out in a joint TWU Local 100/MTA "term sheet," a tentative agreement he has reached with management. In its defense, he says "There is no deal yet, but we are close enough... ." Any closer and they'll be sharing the same bed.

The near-deal is the same kind of sellout we got from Willie James, Sonny Hall and Co. Most members were sick of the TWU old guard leadership, who never fought and only gave back and "traded-off" to the bosses. They voted for Toussaint expecting him, in contrast, to lead a fight against the steadily increasing MTA attacks. Now Toussaint has openly betrayed us.

The MTA has been holding our health and that of our families hostage to extort more givebacks. As members know, the current contract allows the MTA to underfund the HBT: without greatly increased TA contributions, the Fund will be insolvent by Dec. 31. The contract calls for the Union to find "cost savings" (for example, in worker productivity) in return for increased funding. Members marched and protested by the thousands for full HBT funding and against benefit cuts and "cost savings." Many of us felt and still feel that we should strike rather than accept these attacks.

Now Toussaint is pushing very dangerous concessions in return for preserving our benefits till December 15, 2002. The term sheet embodying the proposed deal was dated September 21. It smelled so bad that apparently it was kept secret even from some Local 100 Executive Committee members, the top Local 100 officers, till early November! The most obvious givebacks are in the term sheet's clause 9): "Regional Bus: Forty-five days of negotiations to reach agreement on jointly supported legislation to create Regional Bus Company.... maintenance of existing Civil Service and NYCERS coverage for those who possess it; ... negotiation of a consolidated, separate collective bargaining agreement... ." (emphasis added -- RTW)

In other words, future hirees in what's now NYCT Surface will have no Civil Service status in the planned Regional Bus Company (RBC). Make no mistake; the MTA is hellbent on getting rid of Civil Service and this is another step in their drive.

The trade-away of future hirees' rights in return for allegedly maintaining benefits for current employees has been a particularly underhanded way to weaken us. How many of us remember that NYCTA jobs used to pay top rate from day one of employment, as opposed to after three years, as now? Management always uses less-protected workers to undermine the negotiating position of older workers. And, given the average age and length of service of the present workforce, the MTA can expect to have almost no bus workers with Civil Service status within 20 years. Further, the current MABSTOA and NYCT Surface division employees would have a separate contract from NYCT Subways in the RBC. This obviously aims at dividing the Local at contract time. The bosses will use bus workers to undermine even the threat of a subway strike, and vice-versa. When running for President, Toussaint correctly opposed Willie James's and MABSTOA VP Gil Rodriguez's plan to split Local 100 between subway and bus workers. Now, in office, Toussaint has opened the door to a divided workforce by other means.

Rodriguez, you'll recall, was the union official who tried to ram Giuliani's anti-strike gag order down our throats at the Dec. 15, 1999 General Membership meeting. Later, fearing that the members would throw him and the other boss-loving Surface bureaucrats out, they pushed to split Surface from Subways. In addition to dividing us at contract time, has Toussaint now made a backroom deal to let Rodriguez take one-third of our membership out of the Local? Inquiring minds want to know.

Toussaint, of course, denies that anything skanky is going on. His circular letter dated November 8, says, "for us the main thing is that any agreement will guarantee existing benefits. The Transit Authority commits to 'maintain the current level of benefits,' with the understanding there will be no reserve on 12/15/02." (emphasis in original -- RTW) But the members were given to understand at the demonstrations called by Toussaint that we would keep our benefits and give nothing back to the MTA. The fact that by contract expiration there will be no reserve in the HBT means that the fund will be insolvent right away, instead of after two years, as under the current rotten contract! The MTA has now been given the upper hand in slashing benefits and/or wringing further givebacks from us in the coming contract round.

Toussaint refers to the RBC as "a shell, in which we are not required to participate. No member will have their work rules, benefits, seniority, pick rights, etc. changed in any way. ... We are firmly committed to the idea that the membership must vote to ratify any agreement... ." (Original emphasis -- RTW)

There are a number of things wrong with this. First, how can such a total re-organization as the planned RBC not affect "seniority, pick rights, etc."? Note, also, that here Toussaint says nothing about Civil Service status, which would be abolished for new workers, and ultimately for all Surface employees. Toussaint's claim that "we are not required to participate" in any RBC is belied by the term sheet's agreement on "Forty-five days of negotiation" for "legislation to create" RBC. Term sheet clause 12) says further, "....If no ratified and approved MOU [Memorandum of Understanding: equivalent to a contract clause -- RTW], then arbitration." (our emphasis -- RTW). Toussaint says that the arbitration concerns only the union's claim that the MTA is contractually required to fund the HBT reserve. But if that's so, why would we need a ratification vote?

Toussaint exposes his own capitulation when he mentions in passing that "it was the threat of a strike authorization vote in August" that kept the MTA from cutting our benefits. At the time, Toussaint kept the strike threat secret from the membership and most of the Local officers. If a secret strike threat and an unmobilized membership backed the MTA down, think of what we could win with open, well-organized strike preparations! Instead, Toussaint prepares a retreat, without even testing our strength against the bosses. As RTW predicted, he has turned into everything he seemed to run against in the last Local 100 elections. He has the nerve to put out a Dec. 1 meeting announcement which just about pronounces him the re-incarnation of Mike Quill. Despite Quill's bureaucratic ways, initial pro-Stalinist games and later anti-communist purges, he actually led some strikes and won real gains.

December 1 Meeting: Stop the Sellout! Let the Members Decide!

President Toussaint wants no membership motions or votes at the December 1 meeting itself. The members will only be allowed an advisory vote on important topics, like the HBT, the 2002 Contract, the Pension refund, etc., at separate workshops, which will then report back to the Plenary (full) session. Toussaint said at a Local 100 Staff Meeting on Nov. 14, that there would be only "limited discussion" at the Plenary session. He fears a democratic meeting like that on the evening of Dec. 14, 1999, where 4000 members freely raised motions, debated and unanimously passed Bro. Eric Josephson's motion to strike.

The planned high points of the Dec. 1 meeting are diversions. We get to hear "Special Guest Speakers," that is, capitalist politicians coming to bullshit us that they're our friends. Meanwhile, they cut back on workers and shovel billions to the capitalists in the airlines, insurance, etc. industries. We'll get to hear Jesse Jackson, who last year browbeat Los Angeles transit workers into calling off their solid strike and accepting most of the givebacks that management wanted. However, the most special guest speaker will be Senator Hillary Clinton, who openly attacked our right to strike when Giuliani issued his injunction against us in Dec. '99. And Toussaint & Co. haven't even asked her to repudiate her attack on us, much less challenge her on future injunctions and the Taylor Law which she supports!

We don't need diversions, we need to have a real say in controlling our lives and preserving our livelihood. We have to fight to turn the Dec. 1 meeting into a real membership meeting.

Leaders Should Lead!

Long-time New Directions leaders, including Recording Sec'y Noel Acevedo and RTO VP Tim Schermerhorn, have been on the outs with Toussaint since early this year. They finally put out a publication, the "Rank and File Advocate" in October which criticizes the regime's undemocratic functioning -- only nine months after Revolutionary Transit Worker did so. The "Advocate" also criticizes Toussaint for not organizing membership fightbacks to defend our HBT, such as working by the rules. A work-to-rule can be part of a fightback strategy. But many members already know that a serious fightback requires at least a strike mobilization and probably a strike itself. This argument is one of the number of urgent questions that we must discuss and vote on at the Dec. 1 Meeting. We won't be able to, however, unless we open that meeting up for the members to decide.

At the meeting, the "Advocate," to be honest with the members, should openly explain that to fight health benefit cuts or trade-offs, we'll have to strike. Given the MTA offensive against us, there is no alternative. Toussaint recognizes this: because he fears a strike, he capitulated. If we want to avoid surrender, we have to fight at the meeting for a real Local mobilization now. Frankly, given the past record of the "Advocate" leaders, RTW doesn't expect that they will lead such a struggle. They have been dodging this question since at least 1984. And, even now, when the crisis shows it can't be dodged anymore, we know that they will find a way.

However, we do challenge them to at least publicly and loudly demand a Real Membership Meeting -- Let the Members Decide! Real working class leaders risk immediate unpopularity. They lead by putting forward ideas and strategies that they believe are necessary and try to convince others. But, instead, the New Direction leaders who now publish the "Advocate" have a record of putting forward only proposals they think that many transit workers will already accept. (We also believe that they underestimate the level of understanding by the members.) They hide their lack of leadership by claiming to champion rank and file democracy -- let the members decide.

OK. It is time for the "Advocate" Executive Board "rank and file" leaders to put up or shut up! Will they lead in the fight to make the Dec. 1 meeting into a real rank-and-file-controlled meeting? So far, true to form, they have dodged the question. They never even raised motions on the EB for a democratic, decision-making meeting. Indeed, "Advocate" issue #1 only mentions the Dec. 1 Meeting as an event worth attending. RTW challenges the "Advocate" leaders to rally the ranks for a real membership meeting. We point out that not only the RTW, but many other transit workers would join them in a serious struggle against the growing Toussaint machine!

The MTA is screwing transit workers. We have to fight back. We can organize an effective fightback only if the membership openly discusses the challenges we face. Such a meeting can galvanize our ranks. United, transit workers have enormous power and strategic position in this city.

At such a meeting, Revolutionary Transit Worker will argue for strike preparation. We will also push for a city-wide working-class struggle against the massive cut-backs all the politicians are now launching -- mobilize all the unions! We will argue the need to cut loose from illusions in the capitalist politicians, Democratic and Republican. Capitalism is now going into a deep economic crisis and all the bosses, not only the MTA, are on the attack, trying to make the working class pay for it. To defend ourselves, we need a revolutionary workers' party and leaders who will really lead. That's what revolutionaries are.

At the meeting, other workers will certainly argue differently. And Toussaint and the dissident "Advocate" leaders will have to present and defend their strategies. Militants must fight to make December 1 a real membership meeting, not a bureaucratic spectacle.

Currently Listening Small Faces By Small Faces see related

When Mao died the masses of Chinese people were in the midst of yet another soul-stirring and decisive battle. With the support and guidance of Mao they were fighting to beat back the counter-revolutionary offensive of Deng Xiaoping and others in the top leadership of the Communist Party itself who were whipping up a large-scale wind to reverse the great victories and achievements, especially in the Cultural Revolution. This latest battle raging in 1976 was not an academic debate over how to evaluate the unprecedented events and results of the Cultural Revolution but a life and death struggle over which class would rule China, the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, and which road it would follow, the revolutionary road of socialism or the counterrevolutionary road of restoring the old society with all its misery for the masses.

On October 6, 1976, less than a month after Mao's death and less than three weeks after the official mourning period for Mao had ended, the revisionists, using portions of power they had seized from the working class over a period of time, especially in the military, pulled off their coup, before the mass struggle could be developed further and strike harder at their positions of power.

And with this act the revisionists rose to power, seizing control of the Communist Party and the state. This coup marked the decisive turning point and fundamental change, the beginning of the process of suppressing genuine revolutionaries and the masses, reversing the entire revolution and restoring capitalism.

The Loss in China and the Revolutionary Legacy of Mao Tsetung

Bob Avakian

Currently Reading The Humanist Controversy and Other Texts By Louis Althusser see related

It has been quite the while since I've updated this site...I will begin posting articles and my spoken word here soo. So I am back my peeps and Comrades!!!