NYC transit strike: Did Toussaint screw up or was he betrayed?

This article is well worth reading all the way through (just for the references to the media reaction, especially the NY Post's comparing the strike to 9/11). I'd be interested to know if those with more expertise in the area of unions and organizing think it's a fair summary of the situation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/strik-d24.shtml

A group of top union officials in New York City played the key role in bringing about the abrupt end of the New York City transit strike, brokering a deal that leaves 34,000 subway and bus workers exposed to punishing financial penalties and the continued drive by their employer, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), to extract far-reaching concessions.

<edit>

But among the official union leadership in the city, the walkout was viewed with hostility and fear. The union leaders were terrified that the transit workers’ struggle could get out of control and touch off the social powder keg that exists in the financial center of world capitalism—a city dominated by the social chasm between an elite of Wall Street multimillionaires and millions of struggling and impoverished workers.

The labor bureaucrats’ principal concern was that a successful strike by transit workers could inspire further eruptions of the class struggle. So they set out to sabotage and suppress the strike.

<edit>

But what about Toussaint? What did he expect when he called the strike? Apparently he harbored the utterly unfounded illusion that the other unions would come to his support, and that the Democratic politicians upon whom the TWU has lavished campaign contributions would provide the union with political cover. None of this happened, which was entirely predictable.

<edit>

What the strike has exposed, above all, is that the unions are absolutely useless as instruments of social struggle. Their role is to straitjacket the working class and organize defeats.

Without an independent political alternative and a social and economic program opposed to the drive by Wall Street to smash down all impediments to profit and wealth accumulation, it is impossible to wage a successful struggle.

more...

among the membership. Not sure what the attitude was among the leadership... probably "equivocal".

I'm not so sure the strike was not successful. That will be determined by the specifics of the final contract. The task for the union is do demonstrate that the political and economic leadership of the city is provoking a crisis by demanding unrealistic concessions ( it is holding out for lower pay, in plain English).

Not so easy to communicate in this media market... where big money is *everything*, literally. This fact shapes what passes for political debate in these parts. Also accounts for the deafening silence of our DEM elected reps ( with a few exceptions).

Interesting note: TWU was one of the few unions to endorse billionaire Bloomberg's DEM mayoral opponent. Do you think there might be an element of payback involved here?

Hmmm...

JamesWolcott.com
Strike Zone
Posted by James Wolcott

Watching Roger Toussaint's impassioned, eloquent press conference on NY1--where he laced into the mayor for calling the TWU "thuggish" and "selfish"--reminded me that Steve Gilliard has been unleashing thunder and lightning in his blog on the strike and the racist, anti-union slant of most media coverage. (Notable exceptions: Juan Gonzalez's column in today's Daily News--a lone voice in the paper's demagogic posturing--and Mark Riley, flying solo on what used to be Air America's Morning Sedition as it transitions into the New Year Mark Riley/Rachel Maddow one-two punch.)

Predictably, rightwing bloggers are bouncing off their padded walls angrily demanding that the union be crushed and its leaders jailed. Some have even begun using Reagan as a verb, as in, "Somebody needs to Reagan the TWU the way he did the air controllers' strike."

more:
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/12/strike_zone.php
- go to original link for links to all referenced articles.

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

<edit>

They why did you fucking write this?

Do you know the stress of the job, the conditions they work under? Repairing subways in your spare time?

You don't have sympathy for that because you sit on your ass all day writing, not repairing Bombadier rail cars in the open in August.

What a fucking idiot, when not backstabbing other bloggers or campaigning for a MSM job, he now opines that working in the open at 55 is a deal. Believe me, it's not the kind of deal he'd like if he dropped dead at 57 or 60.

Most of the MTA titles are hard, physical labor or stressful contact with the public. They aren't opining behind a fucking keyboard.

Personally, when a union member says that they're happy to make it retirement, one which was age 50 when the union was mostly Irish, I'll take their word for it, not judge that they aren't worthy for such a deal.

more...

I think he did a very good job getting the Mayor's attention.

However, he basically "spat" in their face, calling them thugs. He knew that they didn't have a prayer of winning the strike.

The transport union was ganged up on by business, the legislature, the courts and to an extent the citizens of NY. This is exactly how fascist governments deal with any movement that jeopardizes their
profits and/or convenience. Nobody gave a damn about the workers except themselves and a few sympathizers. With a million dollar a day fine and $25,000 threatened to the workers, how could they have possibly won? They were "screwed" before they ever started.

For them to have had any chance at all, they would have had to de fang the Taylor law bis litigation. Short of that, they were vulnerable to charges of criminality.

& I think that this writer has a pre-set agenda.
We don't actually know what the outcome of the negotiations are yet and until we do there's no way to know if Toussaint screwed up.
This writer may be making an educated guess, but it is just a guess.

I know from living in New York than the general mood of the public was not really against the union. They may not have liked the strike, but most people I spoke to understood why it was happening and tended on balance to blame the MTA, not the union.
Despite what you read in the papers ...
Gee, you think the papers might be biased at all?