The 2005 New York City transit strike, held from December 20 through 22, 2005, was the third strike ever by the Transport Workers Union Local 100 against New York City's Transit Authority and involved between 32,000 and 34,000 strikers.
In December 2005, the TWU Local 100 called a strike in New York City. Negotiations for a new contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) broke down over retirement, pension, and wage increases. The strike began at 3:00 a.m. EST on December 20. Most New York City Transit Authority and MTA Bus Company personnel observed the strike, effectively halting all service on the subway and buses, except for routes operated from the Spring Creek Depot, where workers represented by ATU Local 1181/1061 had a contract in force after striking against the predecessor operator, Command Bus Company, the previous year. Millions of commuters were affected. The strike officially ended at 2:35 p.m. EST on December 22, 2005. Service was restored overnight, with all transportation systems fully operational by the morning commute of the 23rd.
On December 27, 2005 the executive board of Local 100 of the TWU accepted a 37-month contract offer from the MTA. The 37-month length was crucial, as the last contract ended on December 15, causing disruption of the New York City economy in the middle of the holiday season. The next contract would expire in mid-January. (However, the union workers rejected the new contract by 7 votes – 11,234 to 11,227 – on January 20, 2006, but overwhelmingly approved it three months later, even though the offer had been legally retracted.)
This was the third strike ever against New York City's Transit Authority. The first was a 12-day walkout in 1966 which prompted the creation of New York's Taylor Law. The second was the 11-day 1980 strike. The 2005 strike, which took place during the busiest shopping week of the year, significantly affected the local economy temporarily, at an estimated total of $80 million.
On April 10, 2006, Justice Theodore T. Jones sentenced Local 100 President Roger Toussaint to ten days in jail and a week later, the union was fined $2.5 million and the automatic deduction of dues from all members was suspended.
Timeline
Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Local 726 (Staten Island) and Local 1056 (Queens) of the Amalgamated Transit Union walked off the job around 3:00 a.m. EST on Tuesday, December 20, 2005, after contract talks broke down during the night, and union negotiators left the bargaining table. TWU members returned to work after an apparent breakthrough in negotiations on December 22, 2005 at 2:35 p.m. EST.
The strike was illegal under the provisions of an addition to New York State Civil Service Law called the Public Employees Fair Employment Act, more commonly called the Taylor Law, which has been in effect since September 1, 1967. It was passed largely in response to the 1966 transit strike. It prohibits municipal workers from striking and provides alternative means for dispute resolution. The law provides for criminal penalties including imprisonment of union officials, and fines against the union and individual striking workers. On December 20, state Supreme Court Justice Theodore T. Jones ruled that the Transport Workers Union was in contempt of two court injunctions, ordering it not to strike and imposing a US$1 million per day fine against the union.
The International TWU issued a statement demanding that Local 100 TWU members return to work immediately, in light of the court injunction and the illegality of the strike. This statement would legally remove culpability from the International TWU in regards to fines levied by the courts. Additionally, International TWU leaders stated publicly that they believed that the strike should not have taken place as they believed that the talks were progressing, and that the last offer made by the MTA was fair and a show of willingness to compromise.
No formal negotiations were held from the stoppage of talks on the night of December 19, 2005 until December 21, 2005, although various news articles have cited anonymous sources that informal talks were continuing. During this period of time, both sides went to court to argue their cases. The MTA suggested binding arbitration as a possible solution, but that possibility was rejected by the local union representatives. Such a resolution could have been imposed if the state's Public Employment Relations Board had declared a formal impasse between the union and the MTA.
At 1:00 a.m. EST on December 22, 2005, the TWU leadership and the MTA were both present in the Grand Hyatt hotel in Manhattan, talking individually with the state mediation panel. At this time, it is unclear whether the TWU and MTA conversed face-to-face. However, the two sides agreed to resume contract talks and the TWU agreed to direct its membership to return to work. Both parties agreed to a press blackout during contract talks.
Context Union negotiations Pre-strike negotiations The previous contract between MTA and its workers expired at 12:01 a.m. EST (05:01 UTC) December 16, 2005. The MTA and the Transport Workers Union, led by Roger Toussaint, were negotiating to settle a new contract. As they were unable to reach an agreement, the TWU extended the deadline to December 20, 2005, but since the 12:01 a.m. EST (05:01 UTC) December 20, 2005 deadline was not met, the union decided to strike.
A "limited strike" began on two private bus lines, (Jamaica Buses Incorporated and Triboro Coach Corporation), on Monday, December 19, 2005, when their 750 drivers walked off the job. Private carriers were chosen for this "limited strike" because they are not covered under New York state law. However, when these private lines were integrated into MTA Bus on January 9, 2006, their workers became public employees subject to the Taylor Law. It was unclear at the time whether negotiations with the MTA would cover these employees.
Full strikes on subways and buses began on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. The strike was announced by the union and took effect at 3:00 a.m. EST (08:00 UTC) December 20. At the time, Roger Toussaint declared: "The Local 100 Executive Board has voted overwhelmingly to extend strike action to all MTA properties effective immediately." After the announcement, it took approximately 1.5 hours for trains to finish their runs and return to the storage yards.
In the days leading up to the transit strikes, critics and supporters alike contended that any labor action would affect mainly low-income minorities, and the limited strike indeed turned out to be a real hardship for low-income Queens residents. The local union's official reason for the strike was the transit workers' grievances over the hardships that were increasingly being placed on them by the MTA, specifically the issue of pensions. Among other things, the MTA called for the retirement age to be increased seven years (from 55 to 62) and for the amounts received at retirement to be reduced dramatically through the creation of a new "tier" (Tier V) of workers. Most importantly, the MTA had insisted on requiring negotiation of pensions as a condition of negotiating of a new contract although the Taylor Law prohibits this. The MTA had agreed to keep the retirement age at 55 before the strike.
Demands and counteroffers
The TWU demanded that all members of the union receive a 6% salary increase per year for each of the three years of the contract, plus more expensive accommodations for maternity leave, and more money to spend on station maintenance. The MTA offered a 3% raise the first year, a 4% raise the second year, and a 3.5% raise the third year. The striking workers reportedly earn an average of about US$48,000 annually.
The TWU also wanted to lower the age at which point the employee is eligible for a full pension from 55 to 50, and the number of years worked to qualify for that pension from 25 years to 20. A 20/50 pension plan had been put in place a few years after a transit strike in the mid-1960s. The immediate retirement of thousands of the most skilled workers, followed by the soaring costs of workers receiving one or more years in retirement for each year worked, was a key factor in the financial and physical collapse of New York City's transit system in the 1970s. By 1980, a less generous 25/55 pension had been imposed on new workers by the state legislature. By the time of the strike, the financial damage from the 20/50 pension plan had abated, because most of those who benefited had retired with their pensions funded, but those hired under the 25/55 plan were approaching the age at which those who preceded them had recently retired.
A dissident group within the TWU, the New Directions movement, promised a 20/50 pension plan, among other things, as part of its election campaign. After several close and bitterly contested elections, by the time of the strike it had taken over the leadership of the TWU. Despite the damage done to the transit system by a retroactive enhancement of the pension plan in the 1960s, the New York State legislature passed a 20/50 plan several times over the objections of MTA management in the years leading up to the strike. Each time it was vetoed by then-Governor Pataki, who had signed off on hugely expensive pension enhancements for other public employee unions.
Conversely, the MTA had wanted to raise the retirement age for newer workers from 55 to 62, but dropped this demand in exchange for pension contributions from new workers of 6% of gross salary per year for the first 10 years of employment. Under the previous contract, workers contribute 2% to their pension plan.
The pension benefit is not insignificant because it is estimated to cost 25% of salary over the entire 25-year period to fund a pension benefit of half the salary at age 55 for someone who starts employment at age 30. While this estimate is based on a 5% interest rate for discounting present values, a 3.5% annual salary growth rate and mortality according to the Annuity 2000 Merged Gender Mod 1 Table with ages set back 2.0 years. The key point to use the same assumptions to compare the annual yearly cost as a percent of salary for a half pay pension for someone starting at age 30 and retiring at age 62. The additional seven-year wait would drive the cost down to under 17% of salary annual cost. In essence, the MTA's proposal was a greater than 8% salary cut across the board. Using a slightly worse mortality table, the effective salary cut is still within the 7% to 6% salary cut range in terms of value given up. By not accepting the MTA pension offer, Local 100 of the TWU was not forced to a cut. Citing the rising cost of health care, the MTA wanted new employees to contribute 1% of their salary to pay for health insurance. Transit workers currently do not pay for health insurance.
TWU workers also raised complaints about working conditions, including hazards such as smoke, dangerous chemicals and extreme temperatures, abuse from supervisors, verbal or physical threat from passengers, and inability to access restroom facilities on the bus and subway. Just before the contract ended, the MTA offered a 3.5% per year raise and no change in the retirement age, with the caveat that new transit workers pay 6% of their wages into the pension fund, up from the 2% that current workers pay. The offer was rejected, and a strike declared.