Community disaster

Because the MTA is a public agency it is recognized that a major community disaster will require the services of the MTA’s equipment with its facilities far beyond those normally provided. In the event of such a disaster and in recognition of its mandated obligation to the public - TWU Local 100 members’ compensation of all hours worked should be based on the rate of pay of two and one-half times (2 1⁄2x) the employee’s regular rate of pay. They should be paid during the period of such unusual demands caused by the disaster, provided that the equipment is provided to the community at large.

That policy should be followed regardless of who issues the declaration of the disaster - whether the executive branch, legislative branch or MTA. In the event that there was no declaration however later on if the legislative branch or the judiciary branch declare or rule the past events as a community disaster then the members of TWU Local 100 must be paid retroactively with the rate of pay of two and one-half times (2 1⁄2x) the employee’s regular rate of pay.

The Indian Tsunami of 2004, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, together with the worldwide evidence of global warming illustrate that communities and people are increasingly becoming more vulnerable to natural hazards. It is estimated that in the last ten years, disasters affected more than 3 billion people, killed over 750,000 people, and cost more than US$600 billion (Birkmann, 2006). This trend of loss of human lives and property damage suggests that our communities are not resilient enough to natural disasters. Everyone around us is being compensated handsomely however not us - we wonder why.

However we the members of TWU Local 100 are like most people, who work daily and  encounter disaster frequently however we are not rightfully compensated. You probably don't give much thought to what you would do in a disaster because you are trained, you know what to do and how to do it. But disasters like tornadoes, fires, floods, or even power outages, affect us every day. Emergencies that are beyond anyone's control happen. What keeps them from reaching disastrous proportions is preparedness. However that is only one aspect of events.

We here in why did you join the union demand from our president of TWU Local 100 John Samuelsen to attain our rightful compensation in the contract of 2012 for all hours worked on community disaster. Which specifically should be based on the rate of pay of two and one-half times (2 1⁄2x) the employee’s regular rate of pay. Samuelsen must prove by deed, action speaks louder. 

No financial burden for two years

MTA 2011 Preliminary Budget July Financial Plan 2011 - 2014 was forwarded to the  board members with Jay H Walder’s letter on July 27, 2010 - the report has a ‘New Labor Initiative. Controlling wage and benefit costs have a critical role to play in stabilizing the MTA’s finances. After all, wages, fringe benefits and other personnel expenses account for two-thirds of the MTA operating expenses. This Financial Plan assumes that each new labor contract will not impose any additional financial burden on the MTA for two years. This is intended as a clear statement that the MTA can not afford to allow salary, wage and fringe benefit costs to rise in ways unconnected to productivity and the regional economy’s ability to support the system. This, however, does not preclude the possibility of wage increases based on bankable productivity improvements or contributions to benefit costs. Consistent with this “net zero” labor initiative, non-represented employees will not receive a cost of living rise in 2010, which will be the second of two consecutive years without an increase.

The New Efficiency Initiative and New Labor Initiative together are projected to generate savings in excess of $110 million in 2011 growing to more than $400 million in 2014.

It is obvious Jay H Walder has his goals and objectives set towards savings in excess of $110 million for 2011. However John Samuelsen president of TWU Local 100 is not working to spoil those ‘initiatives’ which only hurts members - no matter how you look at it he must answer the following questions. Why are Walder’s savings objectives are at the cost of the membership? Why is Samuelsen aiding Walder in accomplishing his objectives? One wonders why? The membership are a juicy, unprotected target for the MTA and TWU Local 100 under John Samuelsen with his TBOU leadership need to drop the impenetrable fortress act and help them raise the drawbridge.

The membership are being abused by petty and abusive supervisors however John Samuelsen with his buddies blame the membership instead of teaching the membership how to avoid or render those petty and abusive supervisors useless. The support from  John Samuelsen is way overdue. Samuelsen's standard method of responding to membership issues is to ignore them until they won't go away and then issue a response when the outcry gets too loud. That simply won't fly where membership job security is at stake. 

When we attempt to bring the issue of the membership to light we become a fascinating saga all our own. We are faced with massive backlash from John Samuelsen with his TBOU cronies who insist that there is no membership problem - or if there was, it paled in comparison with the job security nightmare that occurred in the previous administration (their words, not ours). 

From our perspective we say this approach represents a commitment to indecisive action that leaves the members hanging for a brief uncomfortable period, then ultimately results in a satisfactory outcome. From our perspective, it represents a commitment first and foremost to not admitting fault, canny observation of which way the members issues winds are blowing, and action only after outcry that has reached a sufficiently intolerable din.

But whatever the reasoning behind this silence-then-solution pattern - it won't work as a response to membership issues. Being on the sick control list, absenteeism, FMLA problems related to the privacy of members that should be fixed - John Samuelsen with his TBOU leadership have no supervisors head trophies - that reveals a lot of his leadership. However he is an expert at handling the union credit card for personal nature.

It is obvious the supervisors attacks are becoming ever more common and there's every reason to believe the membership will increasingly be a target. As long as John Samuelsen enjoys the prime steak at PJ Clarke’s we should be grateful - why shouldn't we be? After all, the membership are uniquely trained not to be aware of their basic rights, thanks to John Samuelsen with his TBOU team. Let's hope the contract of 2012 will eliminate any layoffs to come along which doesn't get such a helpful window of opportunity from Samuelsen. No one is immune from petty and abusive supervisors attacks - John Samuelsen with his TBOU need to take care of its members. Without its own support TBOU reps are having to act like anonymous whistleblowers to get the word out. Membership job security is a whole new game - it is John Samuelsen’s time to think differently in order to benefit the membership.

Management Rights

Jay H Walder in his letter to board members on July 27, 2010 states on the second page: ‘Finally, we must work with our unions to reach new collective bargaining agreements that offset wage increases and contributions to benefit cost. All of this must be accomplished without sacrificing the vital service we provide each day. Achieving these goals will be difficult, but we owe it to our customers and taxpayers to pursue a Financial Plan that continues down the path of reducing costs and making every dollar count.’ 

We here in why did you join the union believe that it is the essence of the management control that is disguised as an effective way to savings. It is clear that the management wants to retain what it had already in addition to wanting more control in the manner of saving rhetoric. We cannot have Walder simply want all of the things that the management reserves the right to decide unilaterally. We here in why did you join the union demand greater worker say in what the MTA can do with their budget.

Since now the price of gas is going up while it hovers around four dollars an average, now an average family does not take their automobiles wily nilly or for mindless errands. However now most are planning ahead which has put tremendous pressure on the need for mass transportation. Thus that translates to the fact that we the members of TWU Local 100 are working harder in addition our productivity is the highest in the nation. Since our MTA is enjoying this windfall of ridership that translates that the MTA is prospering. However we the members have not. We demand raising the real wages and improved benefits not the opposite. However one has to worry of John Samuelsen with his TBOU leadership team.

We also get it that the MTA is anti union campaign - we are also aware with their anti union propaganda under the current law is legal for the MTA to use those tactics as demonstrated in this letter of Walder which does not have to be true as long as it is not directly threatening. However it does suggest the possibility of further layoffs for the coming future. However there are other analysts who believe that the MTA is in good standing financially.

One thing we have on Jay H Walder is that his severance pay - his send away pay of the ‘golden parachute’ is protected. How come it is not part of ‘the path of reducing cost and making every dollar count’ - we wonder why. We also understand Walder is not creative it is also reflected the current MTA corporate culture is not a creative culture as well.

Fiscal crisis

Jay H Walder in his letter to the board members on July 27, 2010 states on the second page: ‘ In the end, this Financial Plan is subject to many risks. New York’s ongoing fiscal crisis is a continuing concern. Keeping the fare and toll revenue increases as low as the agreed-upon 7.5% will only be possible with management's and labor’s continued focus on how to do things more efficiently and reduce cost.’ We here in why did you join the union remind John Samuelsen president of TWU local 100 that ‘New York’s ongoing fiscal crisis’ is not of our making thus the New York governor with his legislative body should solve this fiscal crisis. However it should not be used as a battering ram against the membership of TWU Local 100.

We here in why did you join the union believe the budget crisis is a red herring that Walder will use against the TWU Local 100. However that is an issue for the governor with his legislative bodies. We as members of TWU Local 100 are far removed on many levels since it is an external matter. Thus we do not have control over that issue which is moot in our view. In fact we have to hold Walder with John Samuelsen for the present reserves in the MTA budget of over $100 million that came at the expense of our sweat, backs, and blood - that reserve must be in our control.

We here in why did you join the union do not believe there is a budget constraint for the MTA. However we are not going to allow John Samuelsen to let Walder impact negatively on the memberships wages in the contract of 2012. We will try to shed some light wages, income and the budget constraint. Our real wages growth has declined significantly thus actually becoming negative. Disturbingly our real wages growth has remained quite anemic with real hourly compensation advancing only 2 percent. We here why did you join the union do not agree with the point of view that it is the downward economy - we say no. Most of the municipalities, cities or states are in better shape now budget wise than they were two years ago. However for the current politicians who peddle the doomsday arrival we say that doomsday has been postponed. Even though we the members are being paid more each year inflation is going up nearly as fast. The net result is a stagnant level of real wages or the same thing of the purchasing power of the dollar.

We also get it - wage-price controls have several possible uses. One is to constrain the rate of inflation while the authorities pursue demand expansion policies to insure full employment. While this policy would seem to offer the best of both worlds (low inflation and low unemployment) it is doomed to failure in the long run. We are seeing today what the damage the Reganomics has done to the structure of the wealth pyramid. It has displaced all the wealth to the top of the pyramid creating a huge displacement between the haves and the have nots. In the Kennedy guideposts the pressure of demand on prices and wages overpowered the moral sanction by the controls. In the case of mandatory controls such as Nixon’s program where the pressure of demand coupled with fixed prices and wages creates bottlenecks and shortages that ultimately force  the lifting of the controls programs causes the economy to be permanently damaged. We here in why did you join the union believe that the MTA is not in a budget crisis thus warrant a raise to the wages, increase in fringe benefits, less contribution to the benefit for the members of TWU Local 100.

Net-Zero Labor Initiative

Jay H Walder in his letter to the board members on July 27, 2010 states on the second page: ‘Our goal must be to use fare policy to maintain ridership, improve equity and reduce the cost of collecting fares.’ It was obvious then to any reasonable person that the station department is the target in the cross hair.

We here in why did you join the union thought that our brethren in the station department in the TWU Local 100 had countermeasures. It is clear until now that they are not ready thus Jay H Walder has a free hand. However we here in why did you join the union will press the station department brethren to move out of sight just like the lion hides under the bush to avoid the rifles of the hunters. We would recommend to them instead of being the hunted prey that they have to turn into the predator so that Jay H Walder can be defeated.

We believe that John Samuelsen with his TBOU buddies are aware of the Jay H Walder Financial Plan Challenge that is planned for MTA 2011 PRELIMINARY BUDGET JULY FINANCIAL PLAN 2011-2014 VOLUME I upcoming contracts of ‘Net-Zero Labor Initiative - This Financial Plan assumes that each new labor contract will not impose any additional financial burden on the MTA for two consecutive years and reflect annual CPI-based increases thereafter. This is intended as a clear statement that the MTA can not be financially stable as long as salary, wage and fringe benefit costs rise in ways unconnected to productivity and the regional economy’s ability to support the system. A net-zero approach to wage increases could be achieved through collectively bargained work rule changes, productivity improvements or contributions to benefit costs. These savings are captured below-the-line as savings compared with the baseline dollars captured in Volume II.’

Now if Jay H Walder has laid his plan openly and has let the whole world know ahead of time what his intentions are, it is surprising that TWU Local 100 has no countermeasures plans in place that are ready. They too should be revealed to the whole world what our intentions are except for Samuelsen with his TBOU demagoguery. The rumors are that Samuelsen is not well versed in net-zero. However we believe he is asleep at the switch in either case it does not bode well for the membership. It is incomprehensible that John Samuelsen would allow Jay H Walder to acquire those savings at the expense of our backs, sweat, and blood. We here in why did you join the union reject the work rule change theories of Walder. Neither productivity measures are acceptable nor is a contribution to benefit - as it is our paychecks are thin. Take home pay lasts for a couple of days thus shaving the current paycheck to the bone is not acceptable. In addition we here in why did you join the union say no to Walder’s desire for additional contributions. As it is our contributions to benefit are already high thus they  should go lower than the current status. John Samuelsen with his TBOU chums have no lee way in either of the Walder four theories of net-zero, work rule changes, productivity measures, and contributions to benefit.

Productivity

Jay H Walder in his letter to the board members on July 27, 2010 states on the second page: ‘second, controlling wage and benefit costs is critical. After all, wages, fringe benefits and other personnel expenses account for two-thirds of MTA operating expenses. As long as health benefit and pension costs are rising and wage increases are not offset by productivity improvements or employee contributions to benefit costs, the MTA’s financial situation will remain challenging.’. Also John Samuelsen on November 6, 2010 in the mass membership meeting glanced over the MTA 2011 Preliminary Budget July Financial Plan 2011 - 2014 with snippets of ‘net - zero’ sound bites without going into detail.

It is shameful that John Samuelsen president of TWU Local 100 did not capitalize on the issue of growth productivity. Clearly Walder is saying members of TWU Local 100 are lazy thus he is demanding ‘productivity improvements’ which is growth productivity (output per employee hour). As a result indirectly saying that the growth has stagnated at the MTA. We here in why did you join the union believe that the TWU Local 100 membership are the hardest working public employees in the nation. Their hourly productivity output is the highest in the nation however John Samuelsen’s silence on this issue speaks louder.

By John Samuelsen’s silence, in addition to his not challenging Jay H Walder it has emboldened Walder to seek the slowdown of the wage growth of the TWU Local 100 membership. The term ‘productivity’ usually refers to labor productivity, defined as the amount of output produced in the MTA, industry or economy per employee hour. However there are other productivity measures such as capital productivity (output per unit of capital input) and total factor productivity (output per unit of total factor input).

An increase in labor productivity means that the MTA is able to produce each physical unit of output with less labor input. Thus there are two causes of the secular increase in labor productivity. The first is the process of capital/labor substitution that has taken place as wage rates have risen relative to the costs of capital. In that instance the MTA under Walder is responding by trying to hold down production costs as much as possible by substituting from labor to capital in production. By doing so the MTA produces the same level of output with fewer employee hours, giving rise to an increase in labor productivity. The second factor leading to increase in labor productivity is technological change which allows the MTA to produce the same level of output with less labor, leading to an increase in output per worker thus in labor productivity as well.

It is clear Walder is obsessed with raising productivity at the expense of the TWU Local 100 membership. We here in why did you join the union would remind Samuelsen one of the outcomes of this may be a movement toward various types of labor-management cooperation schemes in which Walder may demand in return greater flexibility in organizing work. He may even promise TWU Local 100 greater say in decision making. We would also caution him many collective bargaining agreements embraced as ‘team concept.’ At GM’s famous Saturn plant in Tennessee, traditional collective bargaining disappeared altogether, replaced with a system of joint decision making on a wide variety of issues. It is known the dangers of team concept are well documented. They usually weaken the grievance procedure and eliminate hard-won work rules yet never give the union real input into most critical management decisions.

HAVOC

John Samuelsen president of the TWU Local 100 would like to portray an illusion that the union is fighting back - we wonder how. Here is how, in the literature of the shop gate survey you find suggested talking points for the HAVOC survey shop gates.

Initially you guided to demoralize the membership with the tough negotiations ahead to scare their wits. Specifically by Cuomo’s budget cuts on the MTA of 100 million, no help from city Bloomberg’s proposed huge cuts to the public sector, and lastly with the fact that many MTA unions are without a contract. In addition Walder was clear on his intent that there will be no gains for TWU with the statement of ‘net zero’. Members believed if they were a boxer and if their trainer came with that advice they would fire their trainer instantly. Their reason being that the trainer is not teaching them how to punch, how to move away from the incoming blows, how to use Muhammad Ali’s rope a dope strategy to effectively be victorious.

Secondly the fantasy continues with a positive opaque statement that ‘unions are fighting back’ - members were asking how, when and where. They noted that there was no fight back during the June/July 2010 massive layoff of the TWU Local 100 members. Then the next bulletin that there were more demonstrations against the cuts in the last two months than we have seen in two years - this is an inaccurate statement since John Samuelsen said he did not want to demonstrate. Specifically stating that he does not believe in rallies due to the fact that only a few or a handful show up which reflects poorly on TWU Local 100 power. Does he not realize that it is the majority who oppose him who do not want to show up. In addition to his inability to organize or mobilize which has been clearly noted by the MTA - that with Jay H Walder they have mister softee. Especially since the picket line at Jay H Walder most of the time was a dozen of paid staff per day. It continues with contradiction of the Wisconsin fight back, and the Ohio fight back. Nationally unions are more mobilized than they have been in twenty years. If those in Wisconsin, Ohio or elsewhere were lucky not to take advice from John Samuelsen - here we salute John Samuelsen as pretender with photo-ops ‘standing as one with Wisconsin’. Finally the claim that TWU is ahead of the curve with the contract coordinating committee in place and HAVOC campaign gearing up - that does not reflect clearly what the members are thinking of.

Then they went on about the survey and how it was being conducted. You can guess what John Samuelsen’s preferred way is - online. Here you can let your imagination run wild from previous past practices, such as the extension of the solidarity fund with phone voting. Remember the extension of ten hours beyond the deadline - well that unsavory card can be used by John Samuelsen which reflects poorly of not honoring a deadline, however that reflects his character.

It concludes the figment of imagination with a take away point - whatever the outcome of negations and the contract, the future of the TWU is brightest when the most members are involved. The survey is the first step towards getting members involved in the contract fight - members are curious about this fight. Their response is when the MTA audited members of their families then denied their children medical benefits, when they were docked two days on the snow blizzard of 2010 why was John Samuelsen missing in action and how come he never fought back then? Do you believe him now? You can answer that.

We are all for charity

Charity has to be clearly defined - what does this ‘Charity’ Softball Game mean?

The Transit Workers Appreciation Day is on June 4th 2011 with a presumption of violating the IRS code in three instances. We cannot ignore, overlook or sweep it under the rug. Thus the following:

TWU LOCAL 100 HAITI RELIEF FUND

TWU Local 100 Haiti Relief Fund (the "Haiti Fund") was a segregated bank account set up by the Local in 2010 that was funded by a $50,000 donation from 80 Weth Corp (the "Building Fund") as well as donations from active and retired members for approximately $46,000. The purpose of the Haiti Fund was to make donations to organizations that provided relief to victims of the 2010 earthquake that affected Haiti.

As a result of the application of the procedures described above, we found the following:

1) There was a $50,000 donation made by Building Fund to the Haiti Fund. We could not

find evidence in the minutes of the meetings held by the Executive Board during the

Relevant Period that the Executive Board approved this donation despite the fact that the

minutes of the Executive Board meeting held on January 25,2010 requires prior approval

of the Executive Board for spending moneys from the Building Fund for operating

purposes. In this regard, Mr. Samuelsen told us that notwithstanding the fact that the

minutes do not reflect the Executive Board's approval, all members of the Executive

Board were poled for their approval and that they unanimously approved the donation.

2) The Local made a donation from the Haiti Fund of $77,983.28 on November 5, 2010 to Batay Ouvriye, a labor organization (rather than a charity) that is located in Haiti and that according to its website "www.batayouvriye.org," claimed to have been performing some relief efforts in Haiti. In this regard, we were not able to find this organization in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which lists organizations eligible to receive tax deductible charitable contributions.

Mr. Samuelsen explained to us that he observed a speaker from Batay Ouvriye at a Labor

Notes Convention in Detroit in April 2010 and that he was very impressed with the

speaker's description of the relief work/labor organizing model which the speaker

described at length. Mr. Samuelsen stated that when it came time to make a final decision

as to where to donate the monies left in the Haiti Fund, he decided to have them donated

to Batay Ouvriye. Mr. Samuelsen told us that he did some research on them online and

became convinced that the Local's donation was well placed with this organization. We

were not able to corroborate Mr. Samuelsen's explanation.

6

Salibello fit Broder LLP

Certified Public Accountants

In addition, the wire transfer to Batay Ouvriye was signed only by John Samuelsen.

According to TWU of America's constitution, Article XVI, Sections I and IV, and the

Local's by-laws, Articles III and VI, the president can only countersign checks and all

checks must be signed by the Local's Secretary Treasurer. Because of the fact that Israel

Rivera was removed from office before the wire transfer was issued, the wire transfer

carried only the signature of John Samuelsen; however, Mr. Samuelsen did not wait

before authorizing the wire transfer until the Executive Board had appointed a new

Secretary-Treasurer (see Article IX (a) of Local's by-laws) that could have signed the

wire transfer as well.

3) The Local made a donation from the Haiti Fund of $6,000 on April 9, 2010, to

IFCOlPastors for Peace, which according to its website "www.pastorsforpeace.org," is an

ecumenical agency whose mission is to help forward the struggles of oppressed peoples

for justice and self-determination. In this regard, we were not able to find this

organization in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in

Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which lists organizations eligible to

receive tax-deductible charitable contributions.

With regard to this donation, Mr. Samuelsen told us that a member of the Local traveled

to Haiti and verified that the relief container was received. We were not able to

corroborate Mr. Samuelsen's explanation.

4) The Local made a donation from the Haiti Fund of $1,500 on April 29, 2010, to an

organization named "Project: Overflow", through a check made to Galapagos at DUMBO

Inc, to cover the costs of rental fees for the Galapagos Art Space for a fundraising event

termed "Haiti + love" organized by Project: Overflow. The fundraising event was

supposed to be a fashion show that would have raised moneys for Haiti. In this regard, we

were not able to find this organization in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of

Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which

lists organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions.

Machines and technology

There is no question that Jay H Walder our boss is moving at lightening speed to embrace the technology of machines as a manner to phase out the human element. Thus it creates a saving of the labor expense in their view. It is not good that we the members of Local 100 be happy about that. It may be short lived however in the long run the machines will phase out the labor.

Currently the Select Bus Service has been embraced as a success - why? Due to the fact that the farebox has been removed from the bus and now the customer has to pay before boarding the bus on the fareboxes on the sidewalk. Now the most odd thing about it is the bus operators are happy about it. We here in why did you join the union believe that the removal of the farebox from the bus should not be celebrated. 

It may appear that removal of some responsibilities that were conferred onto the bus operators of the collection of fares may result in some demands from the management. Imagine the management in the event of a spit assault on a bus operator of a select service claim that there is no farebox on the bus so the bus operator is to be blamed for this incident. In addition indirectly by the removal of the farebox from the bus that may lead to the elimination of the titles of those who were maintaining the fareboxes in the buses. Thus that should not be embraced. 

The MTA on January 20, 2011 removed the gates on the E-ZPass lanes on the Henry Hudson Bridge as part of a pilot program to move to completely cashless tolling on the bridge by 2012. Drivers with E-ZPass can now roll through the tollbooth without having to wait for the barricade to rise, making it quicker to move across the bridge. 

‘There’s a better way to collect tolls in the 21st century, and it’s called all electronic tolling.’ said Jay H Walder, chairman, CEO of the MTA. ‘By removing the gate arms today, we begin the process of ushering in this new era in toll collection. If all goes according to plan, by next year the Henry Hudson Bridge will be the first cashless bridge in the country, reducing travel times for drivers and expenses for the MTA.’ 

There are still three lanes in each direction for drivers without E-ZPass. In 2012 when the bridge goes cashless those lanes will be eliminated. For drivers without E-ZPass and for out-of-state drivers, a picture will be taken of the car’s license plate and the driver will be billed the non E-ZPass toll, currently $4.00. The E-ZPass rate is $2.20.

Many of our sister transit authorities in the country for a long period of time are operating their metro systems without station agents who collect fares as we do. However it is important that we think ahead looking towards the future before we are phased out by the machines. It is important our brethren in the station department begin to embrace the technology based on section 2.21 which confers upon us the members of TWU Local 100 the Joint labor - management training program. Perhaps in the contract of 2010 they should create a transition mechanism to move the station agent out of the booth into the responsibilities of stocking those machines with rolls of tickets, metro cards, receipts and removal of the funds that would definitely keep them around due to the fact that those machines need the human element - to defeat Jay H Walder’s theory of ‘reduction of labor expenses for the MTA’ .

Assault

Currently there has been an increase number of assaults against NYC Transit Authority members of TWU Local 100 in the manner of spitting or laying the hands’ on the employees. That is where it becomes subjective based on human being reaction. Our employer wants all of its employees to avoid such incidents for their whole careers which is unfathomable. Fights with customers, even once a decade, are unacceptable by imposing a punishment of dismissal - NYC TA Rule 31 - is ridiculous since it paints only one scenario of ejectment of a customer.

The current New York Penal - Article 120 - § 120.05 Assault in the Second Degree - A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when: 11. With intent to cause physical injury to a train operator, ticket inspector, conductor, bus operator, or station agent employed by any transit agency, authority or company, public or private, whose operation is authorized by New York state or any of its political subdivisions, he or she causes physical injury to such train operator, ticket inspector, conductor, bus operator, or station agent while such employee is performing an assigned duty on, or directly related to, the operation of a train or bus.  Assault in the second degree is a class D felony. However we have not seen this law applied in any case - clearly here we members of TWU Local 100 have not benefitted the protection that this law confers upon us - it has become a joke among members of the public.

There are infinite scenarios that do not fit the rule 31 of ejectment. Lets imagine when a group of thugs tries the old, ‘I don't got no money, can you help?’, or some people are either stupid or in a hurry to get to their destination and don't like to be late, or they are immature, temperamental and desperate to get off at a location where the bus does not stop. Or an exchange with a member of the public regarding the availability of express train service on a particular subway train line, or spitters especially where the spit sound is clear - now the management wants to ascertain if anything was launched in their view we are gaming the system and they believe if you are a real New Yorker you just deal with it. We here in why did you join the union say it is ridiculous - leave the spit on do not wipe it out, call 911 - file a report with NYPD, go to the hospital by the NYFD ambulance (not on the authority vehicle) - get the medical report. Based on those reports you would be rightfully compensated and be able to recuperate. Do not sign anything the management hands you - have another set of eyes scrutinize what it is you are signing - otherwise the management will give you the run around later.

We also are aware the MTA has suspended a bus driver without pay and is

considering firing him because he kicked a passenger off his bus for smoking.

We also know a conductor who was employed since 1985. On April 14, 2006, the employee had a heated exchange with a member of the public regarding the availability of express train service on a particular subway train line. According to the arbitrator's factual findings, during the course of this dialogue, "not without some provocation from the complainant," the employee "forcefully 'laid hands' on the complainant." The parties on this appeal do not dispute the arbitrator's finding that the employee assaulted a Transit Authority customer. 

We here in why did you join the union believe the current grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into by the Transit Authority and TWU Local 100 are not sufficient and they do not empower the member. We demand from John Samuelsen with his TBOU buddies in the contract of 2012 to spell out a nice lawsuit against the spitter plus a good $100K compensation, which can solve such problems in the future.

Zero Givebacks

Everything is important, nothing is not important - to give it away currently our TWU Local 100 is conducting a survey under the moniker HAVOC. John Samuelsen may use the result of the Havoc as a mandate to give away whatever you rate as being not important. Based on that please do rate everything as important. In the last part where there is a question of what did we leave out? Are there contract goals that are not listed on the survey or that need additional explaining? Please write them below - please do write the following ‘zero giveback’.

Whether wages, health benefits, retiree health benefits, pick and schedules, promotional opportunities, childcare/maternity, vacation/sick leave, job security, defend 25/55 pension or dignity on job/discipline/sick control they are all important nothing deserves to be lowest priority or given away. If this HAVOC survey result will be used against the membership by John Samuelsen with his TBOU as a mandate ‘this is what you wanted, this is what you chose’. Later stating that ‘we relied on the survey result thus we bargained based on what you told us was important to you in the contract’ - we here in why did you join the union say no to give backs - zero givebacks.

Imagine on the health benefit you are restricted to one pick that indicates the other choices do not matter, perhaps they may be conceded or given away - you wonder why. Now the question is if you rely on glasses does that mean you are forced to select optical? What about other medical benefits does that mean you will not need them? Lets assume a member needs dental care does that mean he/she should ignore the other medical benefits? Then the ridiculous choice ‘more insurance providers’ does that mean you prefer a health insurance company over your medical benefits? One wonders where the give back will end? Then the last choice ‘better out-of-network payment’ clearly that choice is rubbish all of our medical benefits are important we should not be forced to select one.

Then there is the question, what are you ready to do for our contract fight? Pick all that apply: 1) at work: picket at lunch time, wear union button, talk to co-workers, 2) citywide: attend demos and rallies, 3) in the community: hand out flyers, talk to people, 4) invite a TWU speaker to my community or religious organization, 5) pay all back dues (please contact me to make arrangements), 6) nothing - in this question if you notice the onus is placed on the member instead of John Samuelsen with his TBOU chums - now you wonder what will they do? All who crowd the unionhall - those political hacks, buddies, chums in the union hall your guess is good as ours maybe their choice would be number 6.

Then the absurd question ‘Are you aware that only members in good standing can vote on any proposed contract?’ That was a surprise of the century. Then lastly ‘What did we leave out? Are there contract goals that are not listed on the survey or that need additional explaining? Please write them below.’ We here in why did you join the union recommend you write zero giveback.

Wage

Imagine if TWU Local 100 were a business firm, we would be based on the theory of  profit maximization. Economists are able to construct simple models that predict the price a firm will charge for its products. Now we can predict the wage rate by using the principle of business that TWU Local 100 should demand in bargaining. However it is first necessary to determine what it is that TWU Local 100 maximizes.

If the MTA demand for labor coupled with the supply of labor then the marginal revenue shows the change in the MTA wage bill caused by lowering the wage rate enough to result in the employment of one more worker. This is an unacceptable theory thus John Samuelsen president of TWU Local 100 has no lee way here.

Lets also imagine a nonunion firm that would set the wage at x if the workers of the firm vote to join the union, then the union must decide what wage to demand from the management in the ensuing negotiations. One objective of the union might be to maximize the union membership in the firm. The union’s wage demand in this case would be the market determined wage. However the problem with this bargaining goal is that workers could have obtained it without the union. To induce workers to remain union members the union would also have to provide some type of nonpecuniary benefit (for example a grievance system). However if we in the TWU Local 100 were to assess the current grievance system based on a sports franchise with its current performance or standings then the number of losses would outweigh the wins thus putting us in par with the New York Mets - so John Samuelsen’s performance as president of TWU Local 100 would be as good as Omar Minaya or Jim Duquette.

Lets imagine another objective might be to maximize the wage rate carried to its logical conclusion then this bargaining goal would result in higher wages in TWU Local 100. This would be appropriate for TWU Local 100 due to the fact that it would push the MTA labor demand up. This approach would be appealing to the TWU Local 100 membership however with John Samuelsen at the helm do not hold your breath.

Lets imagine an additional possible bargaining goal of TWU Local 100 to maximize the economic rents of the membership. This means that TWU Local 100 attempts to set the wage so that the membership receives the greatest amount of earnings in excess of the amount they would have obtained in a nonunion firm. To do this, the TWU Local 100 selects the point where marginal revenue and marginal labor costs are equal giving rise to a level employment with an optimal wage demand. This option would be based on the price charged by a profit maximizing monopolist. However as we know John Samuelsen based on his performance since January 2010 till now does not instill confidence.

Let’s imagine a further possible union bargaining goal is to maximize the wage bill this may be an option John Samuelsen may use by claiming the MTA total outlay for labor is maximized at the level of employment where the marginal revenue is zero.

We have given several theories of maximization of either the wage bill or the economic rents of the membership with the problem that neither of the bargaining goals are in the self interest of the individual TWU Local 100 member. The business firms’ goal of profit maximization is in the self interest of every stockholder, since each receives a share of any increase in profits. We members of TWU Local 100 are not like stockholders of a firm because the union has no internal transfer device to evenly divide the wage bill or economic rents among the individual members. As you have noted in the FORM LM-2 LABOR ORGANIZATION ANNUAL REPORT where John Samuelsen has awarded himself $150,632, Kevin Harrington $101,780, Stephen A Downs $91,065 - clearly this model does not distribute the wage evenly or even based on their performance. Those were the days my fellow co worker when Blackbeard had a code to observe. A pirate code was a code of conduct invented for governing pirates. Generally each pirate crew had its own code or articles, which provided rules for discipline, division of stolen goods, and compensation for injured pirates. Now can you guess which code we observe? It is obvious the membership receives no benefit from maximizing the wage bill, and if John Samuelsen would utilize any of those theories we would oppose due to their limitation.

Survey

Survey after survey, conducted by TWU Local 100 Contract Survey from April-May 2011 consistently proves one important point about TWU Local 100. While most members are highly critical of our leadership under John Samuelsen with his TBOU team as a whole, they love the TWU Local 100, no matter how bad it really is.

Such is the case with John Samuelsen with his TBOU cronies with their financial irregularities, problems or standards as indicated in the interim report of April 1, 2011. This report may lead to the quick demise of John Samuelsen with his TBOU chums and may set a new record since his leadership started on January 2010. Since he has assumed the tutelage of TWU Local 100 nothing has gone right - layoff, robber baron solidarity fund, Israel Rivera removal, moving from 80 West End to the unfriendly building at 1700 Broadway, wild meaningless claims of purchase of property in mass membership meeting then the icing on the cake, the use of the union credit cards improperly for non union functions but rather personal nature.

The interim report is an extensive, scathing report summarizing improper use of union credit cards however John Samuelsen did not rush to survey the membership on how they felt about their dues being swiped which is absolute resentment but rather came with a scheme to pacify them with a TWU Local 100 Contract Survey from April-May 2011.

By and large the membership will ignore the financial quagmire that TWU Local 100 is in, so long as they are not forced to pay more dues out of their thin paychecks due to the fact that the membership are very observant, engaged and disciplined in reading their paychecks. John Samuelsen’s confidence is not shared with the membership.

Because of the gravity of the situation TWU Local 100 under John Samuelsen is in a life-or-death process that will be decided by the TWU International. We are also aware that John Samuelsen tried to stir ‘TWU International is mad at us’ thus we have to fight back, ‘it is war’ - thus what transpired was ominous. Clearly the membership noisily engaged in their own chosen independent activities - monthly meetings have been turned into horseplay with TBOU members unable to conduct some meetings thus they were whimsically cancelled.

Actually the chaos at TWU Local 100 comes as no surprise to us. When John Samulesen with his TBOU pals presented their pie in the sky plan in January 2010, it was clear that the entire enterprise was built on meaningless jargon centered around the social political movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labor and private property in the means of production and real estate, one of a dozen such questionable ideas stitched together in a proposal  that would’ve been comical had not the future of the TWU Local 100 been put at risk by the current financial crisis.

There is no question there may be aspects of this that are very disturbing - it is clear John Samuelsen is trying to cloud the financial issue with his personality however the membership must be given all the information rather than pacification with a survey that will not change the outcome of the contract. It is a foregone conclusion, and anything less than the current wage raise of 11.3% is not acceptable.

The strike as a source of bargaining power

The single most important source of bargaining power for the TWU Local 100 is the threat of a strike. However for the MTA it is the ability to resist a strike. A strike imposes costs on both sides since the MTA loses its objective of providing mass transportation while we the workers lose our earnings from work. The relative bargaining power of the MTA in relation to TWU Local 100 hinges on whether the costs of a strike fall more heavily on the MTA or on the workers.

First our bargaining power should be the ability to impose cost on MTA if the MTA does not agree to TWU Local 100 terms. The second bargaining capacity is the ability to insulate TWU Local 100 from retaliatory cost-imposing sanctions by the MTA. We should be able to win our demands depending on how costly it can make disagreement for the MTA.

The nature of the service we provide for New York City is vital for its economy. Just imagine that we are in a position to raise the cost of lettuce in New York City to a significant  cost - how? If the laborers are forced to pay an exorbitant sum just to get to work (in the absence of our services - strike) that cost would be passed to the retailer and in return the retailer will pass the cost to the consumer thus the lettuce price will skyrocket. This is the spill over effect due to the nature that this type of product is perishable and requires constant labor. Thus they are not better or able to take a strike. In addition the retailer will not be able to build up a large stockpile of the lettuce. Since we know perishable goods or services such as lettuce, airline travel or the hotel industry are vulnerable to a strike then its sales become immediately cut off and often cannot be made up after the strike is over.

The overall state of the economy as well as specific conditions in New York City can also have an important impact on the relative bargaining power of TWU Local 100 and the MTA. We in the TWU Local 100 believe in this poor economic time, and the balance of power tips in favor of the workers not the management. Even though the unemployment number is somewhat high - we workers have built up some savings to withstand a strike without fear of losing our jobs.

The relative bargaining power of the TWU Local 100 is unquestionable, and can flatten the MTA and Jay H Walder which we expect to go in our favor. However with John Samulesen as a compromised leader we wonder if this advantage will be turned upside down. We must have a right to strike and it should not be limited to safety issues but rather to production standards. Anything less than the current wage raise of 11.3% is unacceptable, anything less will almost end John Samuelsen’s era. Maybe he will head back to his tools by putting eight hours.

Against concessions

John Samuelsen claims to win the best possible contract, do you believe that? What is your expectation can John Samuelsen really get a good contract? With his claim he will soon begin surveying the members on their contract priorities. Why even bother surveying the membership on this contract of 2012 when every member knows it is a foregone conclusion. Nothing less than the current 11.3% wage raise benchmark is acceptable.

The fact was painfully illustrated when Jay H Walder wanted to privatize the LI Bus due to Nassau county’s inability to contribute its portion to the operating budget of the LI Bus. He may claim that the economy downward spiral may not warrant offering an equal contract to the previous one and that we should be at the mercy of the budget axe swing. He may employ the media vilifying public employees who are members of the TWU Local 100. We expect his stance on the TWU Local 100 contract of 2012 to possibly be part of a negotiating tactic with the state, which is also slashing funding for the MTA. But when you look at the whole picture, a more sinister and disheartening motivation emerges. We are the same type of public employees you saw on the news each night holding out in Wisconsin against a governor doing everything in his power to break the unions by dismantling collective bargaining rights.

On the other hand one wonders how this survey is going to be conducted. Maybe it may never take place at all just like all the vapor that never materialized from John Samuelsen with his TBOU team. It may be a John Samuelsen ploy to build phony sentiments among the membership with this upcoming contract of 2012 by saying that this is ‘the best possible contract.’ Now the question is what is John Samuelsen’ best possible contract? Will it be equal to the contract of 2009-2012 that provided for wage increase of 11.3%? Maybe they will reward us with a new tier 5 in which the management will demand the new hires pay more for and get less from their pensions. In addition to shifting the cost of the pension from the management to the membership.

John Samuelsen may agree to wage freeze with zero percent raise - maybe that is ‘the best possible contract’. However that is from their view not from the membership’s view. How about increased medical co-pays for basic benefits? As long as John Samuelsen does not have to work a dirty job under sometimes petty and abusive supervisors then we should be grateful and consider that ‘the best possible contract.’  Then their trickery part was passing the robber baron solidarity fund - their explanation was vile in comparing it to taxes that a village, county, city or state passes. What John Samuelsen may not be aware of is that in the real world the legislative body passes the state tax laws, not the nonsense voting which did not end at the deadline. When they realized they did not have the number of votes to pass the robber baron solidarity fund they extended the voting for ten more hours. What followed in their explanation about the extension of the deadline was dishonorable. However we expect that in the event the contract is brought up for ratification that it will be rejected by a huge margin. This time around we will be ready with a ‘Vote No’ campaign.

In John Samuelsen’s best possible contract will there be a no-layoff clause? What are the odds? Will it include representation in the health benefit trust? Will it separate the merger of the two bus departments - TA Surface and the Manhattan and Bronx Transit Operating Authority (MaBSTOA)?

There are many questions to be raised but we do not expect John Samuelsen to provide answers but rather play his usual hand that we are the problem instead of looking at the man in the mirror. We predict John Samuelsen’s contract of 2012 will contain major givebacks.

Is the ‘fix’ in?

We remember when New Direction (Tim Schermerhorn & Steve Downs) ‘brought charges to remove Corine Scott-Mack for improper use of her union credit card once she was found guilty, it opened a much broader investigation, which further undermined Willie James leadership.’

Well now it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that John Samuelsen has used the union credit card improperly. We are also aware Steve Downs being on a union payroll had meant a large pay increase without having to work a dirty job under sometimes petty and abusive supervisors. That reveals his character of trying to sweep under the rug John Samuelsen’s improper credit card use.

There is no question under John Samuelsen the improper use of credit card is more widespread than Willie James’ era - if you compare the amounts of John Samuelsen’s numbers they dwarf Willie James. One wonders where the grand vizier Steve Downs character went - whatever happened to chivalry. These days Steve Downs is likely to attack any member just by inquiring about the financial irregularities, problems or standards. We here in why did you join the union observed the recent attack by Steve Downs on a transit worker group that was directed towards Nelson Rivera, VP of CED concerning his inquiries of John Samuelsen’s improper use of credit card in the executive board meeting on 4/26/11. In addition to painting him as an obstructionist - ‘he’s got a direct line to the TWU’s national president, Jim Little’ - fact. He is a member of TWU’s International executive board and he may have Jim Little’s business card that contains his direct line - that is a huge valley where Steve Downs stroke of the brush went awry.

It is not far fetched that John Samuelsen and Steve Downs are doing everything in their power to sabotage any inquiries regarding financial irregularities, problems or standards. If you review the interim audit that John Samuelsen was forced to release unwillingly you notice that they have been removed from the local website without an explanation. Regrettably John Samuelsen with his TBOU have a reputation for arrogance and hypocrisy. We think some humility is called for, we need to further the hard work of getting our TWU Local 100 in order.

On the public relations front nothing better encapsulates how utterly disrespectful John Samuelsen is to the membership about how their membership dues are utilized keeping in mind how hard they have earned them. Clearly John Samuelsen with his TBOU chums have been eating out at ‘upscale’ restaurants which does not fall right in line with what the country, state and city are facing with the downward economy.

We demand that John Samuelsen should not be spending more than $50 a head on dinner $35 a head on lunch $15 a head on breakfast - it should be during a known union function with pre authorization from the executive board. If Samuelsen with his cronies want to act like the richest Americans, we would like to remind him that thousands of members work hard long hours. Their membership dues are for protection of the eight-hour workday, holidays and lunch breaks they are not for John Samuelsen to enjoy in fancy restaurants daily. 

Financial irregularities looms

Our gentle advisements to our TWU Local 100 president John Samuelsen are either his to take or leave. However if he considers them they will enhance him for the betterment of TWU Local 100 which is for the sake of the membership’s well being. We believe he is not failing to understand, however we are not going to accept financial irregularities with his unholy team of union credit cards undignified practice which should end at earnest.

We fail to understand as per John Samuelsen with his TBOU team that there is no financial irregularities issues but rather ‘There have been problems with the Local’s financial practices. As they’ve been identified, they’ve been addressed.’. What is wrong, by the way with encouraging the membership to inquire about this financial irregularities  financial standards or financial problems? Unless John Samuelsen with his TBOU are afraid to respond with the facts of the financial issues then clearly it would be frowned upon.

We would like to praise the changing or moving the goal post concerning these financial irregularities, problems or standards to your liking. We want to look more into John Samuelsen’s financial wizardry on behalf of the membership at all levels. There is no question that the membership are infuriated at John Samuelsen’s financial disclosures and characterizations regarding their credit card usage. Unfortunately financial standards in TWU Local 100 reportedly continues to deteriorate coupled with union credit card misuses which is a disgrace. The operative adage is ‘the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.’ The present recipe appears to provide a financial brew that is from unpalatable to toxic.

We believe all of us have graduated from high school thus we can muster to gain the mathematics formulas for a square = a ². We also know that in physics that gold is a poor conductor of electricity than copper so when the salesman tries to up-sell you on $300 of HDMI cables that are the "only way to make your new 240 Hz TV work" politely tell him he is incorrect and to move on with the sale. Or let us put it another way, if you're paying more than $5 for a two-meter HDMI cable, you're overpaying. In addition to the corrosion between dissimilar metals - if one half of the connection is gold (the cable) and the other is copper (the equipment) you will have a chemical reaction over time. Coming back to the TWU Local 100 financial irregularities, problems, or standards their performance was unholy, if Samuelsen calls a horse’s tail a leg - the horse still only has four legs.

We are not snobbish as not to admit that we were informed by the audit on John Sameulsen’s financial ‘muckraking’ (not pejoratively defined) it would be disappointing to be deprived of that opportunity. It is more a matter of silliness than being disingenuous to suggest ‘that there was never any financial or ‘petty cash’ policy’. On the other hand if there is any truth to the adage that ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ then the latter method at an attempt to destroy the previous administration with the unnecessary unwarranted audit as being of the same stripe is abominable. The point being made was both attempts are likely to backfire.

What saddens and troubles us - bottom line - is that John Samuelsen is an intelligent person however he missed the point, i.e. that our concern is with the principles rather than principals. In this financial controversial scenario between John Samuelsen and Roger Toussaint, the issue is not one of there being sinners - yet saints there ‘ain’t.’ 

Fiscal responsibility

The opponents of John Samuelsen with his TBOU team have every justification for being deeply offended by his recent financial irregularities coupled with his inability to admonish or to demand that those who were ensnared in the union credit card reimburse TWU Local 100. It is an analogy that does not reach beyond the pale of legitimate criticism. It is also accurate in comparing tempest in a teapot to a raging forest fire.

John Samuelsen with his TBOU team try hard to minimize this financial irregularities and much worse, trivialize one of the most disgraceful manifestations of human behavior in world history of ‘You shall not steal’.

On the other hand, we find the current John Samuelsen financial irregularities not cheerful but conspiratorial. Those who were ensnared in the union credit card quagmire maybe felt that they did not have to show any receipts, or no names - that clearly indicates just grab the union credit card to use it as you may please - maybe they believed they have won the lottery. It defies logic maybe they believed that those union credit card statements would not be reviewed. It just revealed their character maybe they believed those union credit card statements are like the glossy types that often congest our mailboxes which get deposited most often unread in the recycle bins.

To be fair, in the above-mentioned financial irregularities John Samuelsen has not cornered the market except with his hyperbole - especially since TBOU has embarked on a campaign to sully the previous administration with inappropriate rhetoric. Better yet to terminate this painful controversy. The considerable talent and energy being expended would be better applied addressing the more urgent needs of our membership.

In closing we here in why did you join the union wish to mention a difference of opinion we have with John Samuelsen in regards with the financial irregularities - we the membership offer a counter weight to his errors. It is the belief that the unattainable is attainable which is a principle cause of this current administration that is trying so hard to achieve the impossible it actually fails in achieving even reasonable strides towards promoting the well being of the membership. We were shocked when one sees the deficit, what as TWU Local 100 do we have to show for that? John Samuelsen certainly hasn’t set a good example of fiscal responsibility. As our honorable fellow co worker said ‘it all comes out in the wash.’ Or will it?

Financial irregularities equals bad standing

We have spoken extensively about good standing members, but let’s focus on bad standing members. It might be a reasonable argument by the members who are in bad standing to say ‘that those union bosses who have the union credit cards who have plunged TWU Local 100 into a financial quagmire may or may not pay up - then why should we bring ourselves to good standing by paying up?’. We understand their point of view of tying the bad standing with the current John Samuelsen with his TBOU financial irregularities.

We here in why did you join the union believe everyone must pay up so there is no excuse for anyone - we are either for TWU Local 100 or not. However once we start to implement or create exceptions then that will only give validity to the argument of the members in bad standing. It is so ordered John Samuelsen with his TBOU buddies who were ensnared in financial irregularities as demonstrated by Salibello & Broder LLP report of April 1, 2011 ‘Interim Consulting Report regarding our investigation of certain issues at Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 for the period from January 1, 2010 to October 31, 2010 and regarding our investigation of disbursements from the Haiti relief fund for the period from January 1, 2010 to November 5, 2010.’ must pay up as soon as possible - if they believe in the financial well being of TWU Local 100.

It is critical for John Samuelsen to demonstrate clearly that he has paid up, he should do it in a manner that removes any doubt in the minds of the membership who are in bad standing. He should pay up in an open manner not in an opaque fashion. 

We also say to our fellow co workers who are in bad standing, you may have an argument however it is not valid. We also understand that those union bosses who were ensnared in the financial irregularities must pay up as soon as possible. We do not agree with the point of view that it is only money - we say it is more than that it is our brotherhood. The argument that John Samuelsen has taken a lot of money in a short period of time in comparison to theirs of small pennies - we also do agree with that point of view if John Samuelsen with his TBOU takes monies then the membership who are in bad standing are justified in their argument of not paying up.

We are in a critical juncture with all things considered. We here in why did you join the union say whether you were ensnared in financial irregularities or a member in bad standing we say to all pay up with no exception or excuses. We are looking towards the contract of 2012 with weary eyes if we are unable to shore up our lines so we can stand up to our employer. We must be an effective pugilist so we can win wage raises in 2012.